create_data_template

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses that placeholders become fillable fields, must match content type fields, supported markdown syntax, reports unmatched placeholders, and explicitly states 'NOT idempotent.' This goes beyond basic purpose and informs the agent of validation and side effects.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, explaining placeholder usage, listing supported markdown, and warning about non-idempotency. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it efficiently structured despite its length.

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 create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites (field name matching), input format (markdown), behavior (validation and reporting), and side effects (non-idempotency). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and reason about outcomes.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining how [Field Name] placeholders work in both body and title_template, and that they must match content type fields, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Author a new data template for a content type from markdown,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_document or create_document_from_template. The focus on authoring a template rather than a document is explicit.

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?

It instructs users to see list_content_types for field name matching, which implies a prerequisite and workflow. It also warns about non-idempotency and the need to fix and recreate if placeholders don't match. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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