create_from_template_tool

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral detail about built-in variables, format specifiers, and unknown variables being preserved, which goes beyond the schema. However, it omits key side-effect behavior: what create_only does, how expected_revision affects writes, and whether an existing note at output_path is overwritten.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. However, the final line '`path` is the written note; data: {template, variables}.' is cryptic and does not earn its place, and the variable list is run-on rather than structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with six parameters, two required, and zero annotation support, the description leaves significant gaps: template resolution, output path semantics, and conflict behavior are unclear. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation isn't strictly needed, but the description is not complete enough to invoke the tool correctly without further investigation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters itself. It only addresses the 'variables' dict (custom variables override built-ins) and vaguely mentions 'path' as the written note; it never clarifies template_path, output_path, vault, create_only, or expected_revision. Required parameters are left to the reader to infer from context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Render a template and write it as a new note,' a specific verb-object pair that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_templates_tool or write_note_tool. The rendering/variables details reinforce the templating purpose. The closing 'data: {template, variables}' is cryptic but does not undermine the core purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when a note should be produced from a template) and explains rendering behavior, but it never states exclusions or compares to alternatives such as write_note_tool or patch_note_tool. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.