Entry template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the returned payload contains (skeleton, example, live-verified example, schemas), which is value beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about whether a category must pre-exist or error behavior for unknown categories.

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 dense sentences with the default mode front-loaded before the category alternative; no filler sentences. Slightly clause-heavy, but every clause carries information about what the caller receives.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the template returns in both modes, and the read-only, idempotent annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete; only guidance on category validity and interaction with sibling tools is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does: the default value 'generic' is explained along with its meaning, and a category name is explained along with how it changes the returned content. That is solid semantic coverage for a single optional parameter, though no valid category values or failure mode for invalid categories are given.

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 the resource (a template for an entry) and specifies exactly what content is returned in each mode: skeleton, example, adapter contract for 'generic', and verb vocabulary plus input/output schemas for a category. It is clear what the tool produces, though it is not framed as a verb+object operation and never distinguishes itself from catalog-adjacent siblings like draft_entry or generate_server by name.

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 two modes are explained (default generic vs named category) and the contributing-to-a-shared-catalog intent is implied, which gives the agent some basis for choosing. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the alternative tools that also produce or manage entries.

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