cipp_create_standard_template

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent), the description adds critical context: the upsert behavior and that templates with Remediate-action standards will modify tenants on the next run. This is a significant behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with the high-impact warning first, followed by the consequence. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the action, the impact, required confirmation, and upsert behavior. It is fully adequate.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the template parameter well. The description does not add new semantic details about the parameter beyond the schema.

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 states the tool creates or updates a CIPP Standards Template via upsert by GUID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cipp_delete_standard_template and cipp_list_standard_templates.

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 explicitly warns about the high-impact nature and the consequence of modifying tenants on the next standards run, advising to confirm with the user. It could explicitly mention when not to use, but the caution is strong.

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