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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuine blast-radius context the annotations cannot convey: publishing propagates to every automation step referencing the template and to alias-based sends, and the snapshot is immutable. It stops short of stating reversibility (whether a prior version can be restored) or required permissions.

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 sentences, zero filler: the first defines the action and its mechanism, the second front-loads the consequence. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the crucial risk (side effects on automation steps and alias sends). Minor gaps remain around reversibility and the fact that both identifiers are optional/alternate, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, and both parameters (id, alias) are documented including that alias is an alternative to id. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource ("Publish a template") and immediately qualifies it with the mechanism ("snapshotting an immutable version for sends"), which distinguishes it from create_template and get_template. An agent knows this is a state-changing publish, not a create or read.

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 the reason to publish — so automation steps and alias sends pick up the template — but never states when to call it versus alternatives (e.g. after create_template, or before/after editing), nor any preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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