template_create

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

Annotations already mark this as non-readonly, and the description adds useful behavior: the created artifact is not immediately a task list; it is a reusable template whose placeholders are resolved when applied. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a useful placeholder detail. No filler or repetition of schema field names.

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 relatively simple three-parameter creation tool, the description conveys purpose, reusability, and placeholder behavior. It does not explain return behavior, but no output schema exists and the create action is straightforward; the main gap is leaving the optional top-level description parameter undefined.

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 description adds placeholder behavior for task title/description beyond the schema, which is valuable. However, the top-level 'description' parameter is unexplained, and schema coverage is only 67%, so the description does not fully compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('reusable set of tasks'), and distinguishes this from template_apply by explaining templates are instantiated later. The mention of placeholders further defines the tool's unique role among siblings.

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 gives clear context: use it to create reusable task templates with variable placeholders that get filled at apply time. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the create-vs-apply distinction is strongly implied.

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