add_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive/mutating action (create) but does not disclose any side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. Beyond the verb, no behavioral context is offered.

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 a single, terse sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It lacks critical information, making it minimal to the point of inadequacy. It does not front-load any useful behavioral or usage details beyond the basic action.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, required permissions, or typical use cases. The agent has almost no context to understand the tool's behavior or 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the four parameters (name, category, language, components). While some parameter names are self-explanatory, the 'components' field is vague and would benefit from elaboration. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Create message template' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (message template). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_templates, remove_template, and send_template, which share the 'template' resource but have different actions. However, it is somewhat generic and lacks scope, so it does not earn 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit comparisons to sibling tools like send_template or list_templates. The agent is given no contextual cues for tool selection.

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