create_experiment_from_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it declares this is a WRITE OPERATION, names the required create write scope, explains the copy semantics of the two boolean flags, and states the return value ('the new id'). It omits failure modes/permission errors, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the write/scope warning, with no filler. Every sentence adds information.

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?

Auth requirements, template discovery, flag semantics, and the return value are covered, and an output schema exists so return shape needn't be detailed. However, five parameters remain unexplained, leaving the definition incomplete for a tool with this many inputs.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains template_id (indirectly) and the two include_* flags; tags, title, trace_id, status_id, and category_id are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new eLabFTW experiment from an experiment template'), and the 'from template' qualifier clearly separates it from the sibling create_experiment.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: the prerequisite tool (list_experiment_templates) for obtaining a template_id, plus the required write scope and the effect of the include_steps/include_body flags. An agent knows when and how to call it.

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