haops_create_role_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the effects: system-wide scope, versioning defaults (version=1, isCurrent=true, isSystem=false), and the nature of baseBody as admin-trusted markdown with no sanitization. It also explains defaultSkills behavior. However, it omits potential error responses or reversibility.

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 three sentences, with the primary action first. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool has 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description covers creation behavior, defaults, and important constraints. It explains the return value ('Returns the created template row') and key behavioral notes. It could be more complete with error handling or rate limits, but it is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that baseBody is admin-trusted and defaultSkills defines auto-enabled skills with the 'required' flag meaning non-disable-able. It also clarifies name uniqueness and character constraints 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 clearly states it creates a new agent role template, specifying admin-only and feature flag requirements. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like haops_update_role_template and haops_deprecate_role_template by explicitly labeling the action as 'create' and detailing unique behaviors like version=1, isCurrent=true.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: admin-only access and the composed-protocols feature flag requirement. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the constraints (admin, feature flag) are well-communicated.

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