MCP Template Owner

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context by stating that the 'call' action may result in 'catalog mutation' or 'validate report', which clarifies behavioral outcomes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and the added detail about mutation and validation improves transparency.

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 description is compact and uses a consistent line-per-action format, making it scannable. Each line includes a verb, a brief description, and an example call. It could be more readable with a summary sentence, but it avoids unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has four distinct actions and no output schema, so the description must cover usage fully. It gives examples for all actions, but omits details about return values, error cases, and the full range of meta targets (e.g., meta.create) which are only in the schema. The schema covers some gaps, but the description alone is not fully self-sufficient for a complex tool.

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 only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing concrete payload examples for each action, showing how to combine 'target', 'params', 'keywords', and 'limit'. This explains which parameters are relevant per action, which the schema alone does not. It adds practical meaning beyond the structured field definitions.

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 clearly identifies the resource (template catalog) and four actions (list, search, describe, call) with example invocations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on template ownership and catalog operations. However, it lacks a plain-language summary sentence, relying instead on terse examples, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 examples imply when to use each action (e.g., list to list, search to search), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so usage context is only implied.

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