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

Annotations already declare the write/non-destructive/non-idempotent profile, so the safety burden is largely carried. The description adds that the result is reusable in broadcasts/sequences and that it returns the created template, but omits auth/permission needs, uniqueness constraints on name, or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage context, requirements, and return value. Slightly repetitive of schema-required fields but no significant padding.

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 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, required inputs, and return value. The absence of a stated output shape is mitigated by 'Returns the created template', leaving little an agent must infer.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters including the nested spintax_variables object and enum category. The description's 'Requires a name, subject line, and HTML body' merely restates the required fields and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 specific verb+resource ('Create a new email template in Meisa') and clarifies it produces a reusable template usable in broadcasts or sequences. It distinguishes the resource from siblings like meisa_create_broadcast or meisa_create_sequence, but does not explicitly name those 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?

'Use this when the user wants to save new email content as a reusable template' gives a clear triggering context. No exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., vs. meisa_update_template or meisa_create_broadcast) are provided, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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