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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world create operation. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral detail: buttons and select menus receive a flow_source_id, which is important for wiring them later with edit_flow.

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 short sentences with no wasted text, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The follow-up sentence adds useful integration context without excessive length.

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 create tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose and one key behavioral side effect. It is still thin on parameter requirements and does not explain return behavior, template limits, or validation expectations.

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 only 50%, and the description does not explain the required name, description, or app_id parameters beyond the schema's brief hints. The mention of buttons and select menus loosely relates to the nested data object but adds little concrete parameter guidance.

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 specific verb and resource: creating a message template that flows can send. This distinguishes it from plain message operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_message or get_template.

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 phrase 'which flows can send' implies the tool is used when building flow-sent messages, and the edit_flow reference gives follow-up context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling tools such as update_message or create_command.

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