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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the action may execute immediately or be filed for approval, and the response status field indicates which occurred. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotation and schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The key clarification ('creating is not sending') is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently conveys the approval behavior without over-explaining.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately tells the agent that the response status field reveals whether the action executed immediately or was proposed. It also covers the main ambiguity around sending versus creating. It could mention idempotency behavior, but the schema's request_id description already covers that.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but it also does not need to because the schema carries the full burden. The baseline of 3 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 states a specific action ('Draft an event email template') with a clear resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from sending ('creating is not sending'). This makes it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like send_email and draft_email.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: when you need to create a template rather than send an email. It also explains the conditional behavior based on organization settings, which helps the agent understand the context. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the 'not sending' clarification provides enough directional guidance.

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