Publish a version of a tenant notification template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | Version to publish (e.g. v1, latest); defaults to latest if omitted | |
| tenant_id | Yes | The tenant ID | |
| template_id | Yes | The template ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it doesn't explain what publishing entails, whether it's reversible, or what happens to previous versions.
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 tight sentence with no filler; the verb and object are front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it reads as a bare statement rather than a structured guide. It is concise but under-sized relative to the need for usage context.
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 tool with only three params, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers the basic purpose. But it omits context about the publishing workflow—when a version must be specified, how this differs from publishing notifications/journeys, and what side effects occur—making it incomplete for an agent facing many sibling publish tools.
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?
All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The tool description itself provides no additional parameter-level meaning; it only echoes the 'version' concept, which is already in the schema. No enums or nested structures require extra explanation.
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 uses the specific verb 'publish' and names the resource 'a version of a tenant notification template,' clearly identifying the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling publish_* tools by the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 over alternatives like publish_journey_template or publish_notification. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions; the agent must infer context from the tool name alone.
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.
Tools are mostly organized as distinct resource/action pairs, but several clusters are easy to confuse: list subscription tools (add_subscribers_to_list vs bulk_subscribe_to_list vs subscribe_user_to_list), message vs message-content vs message-history retrieval, and the many journey/journey-template list/get tools. Detailed descriptions rescue most selections, but the sheer number of near-identical verb/resource names creates real misselection risk.
Almost all tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, replace_, send_, publish_, archive_). Minor deviations keep it from a perfect score: courier_installation_guide is noun-first, and add_bulk_users sits awkwardly next to the bulk_add_* family, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
144 tools is an extreme working-set size for an agent to hold and choose from, far beyond the reasonable 3–15 range. Even for a broad platform like Courier, this should be split into focused sub-servers (templates, journeys, users, lists, preferences, etc.) to remain usable.
The surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering sending, templates, journeys, automations, users, tenants, lists, preferences, providers, routing, brands, audiences, translations, digests, bulk jobs, and audit events. Notable gaps exist—automation template CRUD and digest schedule management are missing—but most workflows can still be completed with workarounds.
