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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds the connector limitation on attachments, but says nothing about error behavior (e.g. duplicate names), permissions, or what the agent gets back — though an output schema exists.

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 a genuine constraint. The opening "Create a Template -" partially restates the title before the useful clause, which is minor waste but not damaging.

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?

An output schema exists and all seven parameters are fully described, so the description needn't explain return values or param formats. It covers the one non-obvious behavioral constraint (attachments) that the schema also flags; nothing essential for calling the tool 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%, so every parameter including the folder-typing constraint and the attachments limitation is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline case.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ("Create a new email template"), which is more specific than the title's bare "Template" and separates it from update_template/get_template/archive_template by verb. It does not explicitly name siblings or contrast scope, so it stops short of 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 create verb implies the when (making a new template rather than editing an existing one via update_template), and the attachment caveat routes the agent to the web app for files. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites, workspace scoping, or when to prefer an alternative tool.

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