gh_run_template

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: it signals that the tool forces a fresh solution rather than reusing a cached one, and that baking outputs into Rhino is optional. However, it does not disclose potential document mutation implications, what happens to prior solution state, or failure/timeout behavior.

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 a single tight sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action, though it errs on the side of being terse given the tool's parameter and workflow complexity.

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?

Given the surrounding sibling tools and the required template_id workflow, the description is too thin. It does not explain that the template must first be loaded via gh_load_template, how this differs from running the active definition with gh_run, or what 'declared outputs' refers to operationally.

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 effectively 0% for the top-level parameter, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints at the 'bake' behavior and says nothing about template_id, layer, or timeout_seconds, leaving the agent to rely on the nested schema descriptions for those important details.

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 names a clear action ('Force a fresh solution') and a concrete optional outcome ('bake the declared outputs'), which maps well to running a Grasshopper template. It is understandable in context, but it does not explicitly differentiate gh_run_template from the closely related gh_run or gh_bake_to_rhino tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gh_run, gh_load_template, or gh_bake_to_rhino. The workflow dependency on gh_load_template is only implied by the parameter name, and there are no exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool.

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