Replace a notification template entirely (full document PUT).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | Template state after update (defaults to DRAFT) | |
| notification | Yes | Full notification template payload | |
| notification_id | Yes | The notification template ID to replace |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the full-document PUT semantics, clarifying that the operation replaces the entire template (omitted fields are logically cleared), which goes beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint. It doesn't cover versioning, publish state effects, or default state, but annotations already provide the basic safety profile.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the operation and its HTTP method with no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it an appropriately terse definition.
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 full-replace operation, 'full document PUT' conveys the core replacement semantics, and the schema covers all inputs. The absence of an output schema leaves the response shape unspecified, and no side effects (e.g., versioning or state transitions) are mentioned, but the inputs are fully covered.
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?
The input schema fully documents all three parameters (notification_id, notification, state) with descriptions and enums, so the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. It provides no additional semantic beyond the schema, but the 100% schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.
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 a specific verb ('Replace'), names the resource ('notification template'), and qualifies it with 'entirely (full document PUT)', which distinguishes it from partial-update siblings like put_notification_content or put_notification_element. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the full-document qualifier does the differentiation.
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 usage for full replacement rather than partial updates, but it does not state when to prefer this over create_notification or the put_notification_* tools, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. This is implied usage only.
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.
