emails_create_template

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the purpose itself, such as side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions. With annotations present, a baseline of 3 could be considered, but the description contributes nothing extra, so 2 is appropriate.

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 extremely short (6 words), making it concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks any structural detail that would help an agent understand the tool's capabilities. It is closer to a label than a helpful description.

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?

With 12 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and minimal parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would not know what inputs to provide, what behaviors to expect, or how to handle errors. The description fails to provide essential context for correct invocation.

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 8% (only locationId has a description). The description does not explain any parameters, nor does it mention which fields are required or how they relate to template creation. Given the low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails entirely.

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 a new template' clearly states a specific action (create) on a resource (template). It is distinct from sibling tools like emails_update_template, emails_delete_template, etc. However, it does not specify that it is an email template explicitly, though the tool name and context make that clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no mention of required parameters (type, importProvider), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name, which is insufficient.

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