use-template

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

The description discloses key behaviors: creates a draft (not sent), returns confirmation, user reviews before sending. With no annotations provided, it carries the transparency burden well, though it omits error handling details like invalid template IDs.

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 concise, using clear headings like 'Use when' and 'Returns:'. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure facilitates quick comprehension.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, return value, and parameter roles. An output schema exists for further details, so completeness is high.

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 coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'optionally overriding' but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond the schema. The id parameter lacks schema description but is implied as the template identifier.

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: composing a new draft from a saved template, with optional overrides. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get-template and send-email, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections with specific alternative tool names (get-template for inspection, send-email for immediate sending) provide clear guidance on appropriate contexts.

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