Create Template

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond them by stating that explicit confirmation is required, that provider charges/hosting/sharing/deletion may apply, and that outcomes must not be auto-resubmitted — the last aligning usefully with the non-idempotent hint.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the template/merge-field elaboration follows, and the operational warnings are grouped at the end. No sentence is redundant, though the Base URL line is marginal boilerplate.

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 wrapping a large nested Edit schema with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and critical safety/charge behavior well. It stops short of describing the return value (e.g. template id) and does not call out that the name parameter is required while no parameters are marked required at the top level.

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 83% (high), so the six parameters (name, account, confirm, payload, template, payload_file) are largely documented by the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — the Merge fields mention refers to an Edit property, not a top-level argument — so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Save an Edit as a re-usable template.' It explains what a template is for (retrieved, modified, merged, rendered) and thereby distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like render_template, update_template and get_template.

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 usage via the template lifecycle ('retrieved and modified ... before being rendered', 'render it in a single request') and the confirmation requirement, but it never explicitly states when to choose create_template over render, render_template or update_template. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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