Create a reusable email template. name, html (full HTML, {{field}} placeholders ok), optional subject + text (plaintext alt; auto-derived if omitted). Reference it from a rule/sequence step via {"type":"send_email","template":""}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| html | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| text | No | ||
| subject | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that subject and text are optional and that text is auto-derived from HTML, which adds behavior beyond the annotations. It also provides the reference format for using the template. However, it does not mention return values, behavior on duplicate keys, or error handling, though annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive.
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 three sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose and then packing parameter semantics and usage example efficiently.
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?
The description explains inputs and usage well but omits any mention of the return value, which is significant given there is no output schema. It also doesn't address error conditions or idempotency, though idempotentHint=false hints at potential duplication. For a moderately complex create tool, the description is slightly incomplete.
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 0%, the description compensates by explaining name, html, subject, and text, including placeholders and auto-derivation. It indirectly covers 'key' through the reference format ('<key or tmpl_id>') but does not explicitly state whether key is optional or how it is used as an identifier.
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: creating a reusable email template. It also differentiates from sibling create tools by specifying the resource (email template) and providing a reference syntax for use in rules/sequences.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to create a reusable template for later reference) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage by describing how the template is referenced, but lacks explicit exclusion of other tools like relm_update.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., create_automation, create_pipeline, create_template), and potential overlaps like batch vs create or log_activity vs create are clearly differentiated in descriptions. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All 41 tools follow the relm_<verb>_<noun> pattern in snake_case, with conventional verbs like create, get, list, delete, manage, and restore. Minor plural/singular differences (list_automations vs get_automation) follow standard resource-naming practices and do not break consistency.
At 41 tools, the set is far beyond the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for an agent to navigate. While the CRM domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., generic get/list by resource type) without losing clarity.
The tool set covers the full record lifecycle (CRUD, restore, batch, search) plus schema management, pipelines, stages, automations, sequences, templates, webhooks, channels, and usage. However, automations, sequences, and templates lack update operations—requiring delete-and-recreate workarounds—which is a minor but notable gap.
