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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds one meaningful behavioral trait beyond that – the draft/publish lifecycle gate ('publish it before use') – but says nothing about duplicate-alias handling or what is returned for referencing later, which matters for a non-idempotent create.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the essential lifecycle constraint. No 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 non-idempotent create with 8 parameters and no output schema, an agent still lacks duplicate-alias behavior, editor-mode semantics, and the response handle. The publish-before-use note is valuable but partial.

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 only 50% with 8 parameters. The description clarifies that alias (and ID) are the handle used by send-email, but leaves text, editor (four-value enum), reply_to and name entirely unexplained, and does not note the {{variables}} templating contract for html/subject.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create an email template'), which cleanly separates it from update-template, delete-template and publish-template in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

Gives clear downstream context: the template is consumed by send-email via ID or alias, and must be published before use. That is real when-to-use guidance, but there are no exclusions or direct pointers to publish-template as the required next step.

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