Replace the draft of a journey-scoped notification template. Full document replacement. Call publish_journey_template afterwards to make it live.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | "PUBLISHED" to publish immediately after replace | |
| journey_id | Yes | The journey template ID that owns this notification | |
| notification | Yes | Full notification template definition | |
| notification_id | Yes | The notification template ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that only the draft is replaced, that replacement is full-document rather than partial, and that a separate publish step is required. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the critical scoping fact and the follow-up publish step. Every sentence earns its place.
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 nested schema and annotations, the description conveys the essential workflow: replace the draft fully, then publish to make it live. It omits the fact that the 'state' parameter can publish immediately, and it does not mention partial-update alternatives, but the schema covers parameter details and the annotations cover safety traits. This is adequately complete for correct invocation.
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 the input schema already documents all parameters, including the 'state' parameter and the 'notification' full-template definition. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating that replacement is full-document. This meets the baseline for fully schema-covered parameters but does not significantly extend it.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the draft of a journey-scoped notification template.' It also clarifies the scope with 'Full document replacement,' which helps differentiate from partial-update tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just 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 description provides clear sequential guidance: 'Call publish_journey_template afterwards to make it live.' This strongly implies this tool is for draft updates before publishing. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives such as partial content update tools, leaving some selection reasoning implied.
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.
