Save the current campaign content as a reusable template for future campaigns. Use when user says 'save this as template', 'create new template'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Email body (HTML or plain text) | |
| name | Yes | Template name | |
| subject | Yes | Email subject line | |
| category | No | Category: product, lead_gen, event, webinar, follow_up, newsletter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), so description doesn't need to restate that. It adds context about the template being reusable, but doesn't disclose behaviors like overwriting existing templates or whether the current campaign context is required. This is acceptable but could be more transparent.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage triggers. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler.
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?
For a simple save operation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context. It could mention what happens on duplicate names or whether it snapshots the current campaign, but overall it's complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 100%, with all four parameters clearly described (name, subject, body, category). The description itself doesn't add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already does. Since the baseline is 3 for full schema coverage, this score is appropriate.
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 verb ('Save') and resource ('current campaign content as a reusable template'), making it distinct from sibling tools like create_campaign or list_campaign_templates. It also includes example user triggers ('save this as template'), reinforcing the tool's exact purpose.
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 says 'Use when user says 'save this as template', 'create new template'', which provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger phrases are sufficient to distinguish it from other creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools occupy nearly identical roles (create_contact/add_contacts/save_contacts_to_crm/upload_contacts; add_companies/create_company; search_contacts/search_crm_contacts/find_contacts_at_companies), and the names don't clearly reveal whether they operate on saved or prospected data. Although the descriptions clarify some boundaries, an agent would frequently need to read many descriptions carefully to avoid mis-selection.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as list_campaigns, create_deal, and update_contact. Minor deviations like company_intelligence, get_icp, load_more_contacts, and the inconsistent use of add_/create_/upload_/save_ for similar creation actions keep it from being fully consistent.
51 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold. Even for a broad CRM/prospecting/marketing platform, exposing this many tools at once makes agent selection costly and unwieldy.
Contact and company creation/read/update are covered, but delete is absent across the board, and campaigns can be drafted, listed, and measured but not edited, activated, paused, or deleted. Deals, forms, and landing pages also lack update/delete lifecycle actions, creating meaningful dead ends for common CRM workflows.
