sb_template_use

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

Annotations already establish write-but-non-destructive (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: insertion happens 'above the footer', and a foreign site's template is copied in whereas built-in layouts are composed against the page's own tokens. It does not, however, explain what dry_run controls.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with the action and then qualifies the source types. Efficient, though the nested parenthetical makes the back half slightly hard to parse.

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?

No output schema, so return values need not be covered, and annotations carry the safety profile. But for a four-parameter mutation tool at 0% schema coverage, the silent dry_run parameter — likely the safe way to preview this operation — is a meaningful omission.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the non-obvious semantics of template_id (two distinct sources) and implies the target page, but says nothing about dry_run or site_id, leaving half the parameters unilluminated.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a section template to a page') and disambiguates the two template sources — an sb_templates row that gets copied versus a built-in layout composed against page tokens. This distinguishes it well from a generic add tool, though the dense phrasing requires a second read.

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?

It references sb_templates as the listing source for template_id, implying this is used after looking up a template, but never states when to use it versus siblings like sb_add or sb_page_create, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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