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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds value by noting that subject and body accept placeholders and points to where to get exact tags, which is a behavioral nuance beyond bare creation. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or the return value after creation, leaving some transparency gaps given the minimal annotations.

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 long with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('Create an email template') and then delivers the placeholder guidance in a secondary clause. Every sentence contributes information, and the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 creation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the placeholder mechanism and directs to helper tools for exact tags, but omits any explanation of the 'name' and 'company_id' fields. It also does not mention what happens on success (e.g., return object or confirmation). Given the tool's simplicity, the gaps are moderate but could cause an agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 schema description coverage at 50% (subject and body have descriptions, name and company_id do not), the description compensates partially by clarifying that subject and body support placeholders. It does not, however, address the meaning or purpose of the 'name' and 'company_id' parameters. While subject and body are enriched, the remaining parameters are left to inference, so the description adds some but not full compensatory value.

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: 'Create an email template.' The verb 'create' distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_update_email_template and hires_delete_email_template. It also specifies the resource (email template) and hints at the placeholder feature, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies when to use this tool (when creating an email template) and provides guidance on handling placeholders by referencing hires_list_template_placeholders and hires_prepare_template_placeholders. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like updating or deleting templates, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly articulated.

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