Materialize a scientific figure template

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds vital behavioral details: 'Never overwrites or executes code' and the explicit instruction to halt on errors. These are not implied by annotations and significantly inform the agent's safety and error recovery behavior.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second conveys critical safety constraints. No filler or redundant statements—every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of a rich input schema (80% parameter descriptions) and an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It adds crucial safety context not in annotations. A minor gap is not explicitly explaining when the 'template' vs 'full' modes are appropriate, but the schema already covers this.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 80% of parameters (mode, destination, allowNetwork, sourcePackDir), including specific details like 'creates destination/<templateId>' and 'fails instead of trying mirrors.' The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning, but with such high schema coverage, it does not need to compensate.

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's function: 'Copy a selected user template or acquire a commit-pinned FigureYa archive.' This specifies a distinct action (copy/acquire) and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like figure_library_import or figure_library_sync. The added constraints 'Never overwrites or executes code' further clarify its scope.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (when a template needs to be materialized) and includes critical error-handling guidance ('stop immediately, report it, and do not retry...'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, relying on the agent to infer from the action described.

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