sb_template_use

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail: site's own templates are copied by the server, while built-in layouts are composed against the page's tokens rather than copied. This clarifies the side-effect model beyond the boolean hints. It does not address dry_run semantics or reversibility, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action and all key distinctions (own template copied vs built-in composed). No fluff, though the grammar is slightly convoluted.

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?

The description covers the main template-id and page-id semantics and the own-vs-built-in distinction, but omits dry_run and site_id behavior and says nothing about return values or side effects. Acceptable for selecting the tool, incomplete for fully invoking with all options.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only indirectly clarifies template_id and page_id. It says nothing about dry_run or site_id, leaving two parameters semantically unexplained. Some value is added for template selection, but the compensation is incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Instantiate a section template into a page,' and clarifies the two source types: the site's own templates (server copies) and BUILT-IN layouts listed by sb_templates. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like sb_templates and states the exact action.

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 about when to use the tool (to instantiate a section template) and refers to sb_templates for built-in layouts, giving the agent a pointer to a sibling tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the built-in vs. site-own distinction is a strong usage signal.

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