yardstick_email_templates_publishUpdate, create, duplicate, reset or delete an email. Set operation; custom emails use email_type as their template key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| email_type | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / email_type / enumRemoved value: -[
- "acknowledgment",
- "advancement",
- "interview_confirmation",
- "rejection",
- "offer_declined",
- "offer",
- "hired",
- "withdrawn",
- "on_hold",
- "candidate_follow_up"
-]Input schema / properties / email_type / patternAdded value: +"^[a-z][a-z0-9_]{0,99}$"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds no publish-specific behavior — no irreversibility, versioning effect, permissions, or side effects — and its list of CRUD verbs is only loosely aligned with a destructive tool.
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?
Two short sentences with no padding, so it is not bloated. However, the brevity is spent on generic CRUD verbs rather than a front-loaded statement of the publish action, so the structure does not earn 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?
For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description omits what publish actually changes and what it returns. It is not sufficient for an agent to invoke it safely.
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 0% across 3 params, so the description must compensate. It only hints that email_type is the 'template key' for custom emails, and its instruction to 'Set operation' references an operation parameter absent from the schema, which is actively misleading.
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 name/title say 'Publish an email version', but the description never mentions publishing. Instead it lists 'Update, create, duplicate, reset or delete' — operations that already have their own sibling tools (yardstick_email_templates_create/_delete/_duplicate/_reset). An agent cannot tell what this tool uniquely does.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives, even though create/delete/duplicate/reset siblings exist. 'Set operation' is vague and, worse, points to a parameter that does not exist in the schema.
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.