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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive action. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'create' – such as whether duplicate names are rejected, whether templates become immediately available, or any side effects. With no extra context, the description fails to add value beyond the 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 a single, directly front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, but it is so terse that it omits useful context that could be added without bloat, so it doesn't reach the maximum.

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 rich input schema (5 params, 100% coverage) and an output schema, an agent can likely invoke the tool correctly based on structured data alone. However, the description offers no explanation of how this template creation fits into the broader workflow (e.g., with send_email) or how it differs from the generic create_template sibling, leaving a moderate gap.

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 each of the five parameters already has a descriptive explanation. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully compensates.

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 'Create an email template' clearly identifies a specific verb and resource, making the tool's basic function unmistakable. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling 'create_template' or related 'update_email_template' tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_template, update_email_template, or set_default_email_template. There are no mentions of prerequisites, target users, or context such as whether this creates a global or client-scoped template.

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