preview_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'no save, no send' and 'UNSAVED template draft,' clarifying non-destructive behavior and working on unsaved data. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but is adequate for a preview 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 sentences, front-loaded with action and output, then use case. Every word adds value, no fluff.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter interactions, default behavior for missing parameters, or return format. However, as a preview tool, basic completeness is achieved, but gaps remain.

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 low (40%), and the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond mentioning 'merge data' for the data parameter. The roles of html, text, subject, and sender are explained only in the schema, not in the description, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool renders an unsaved template draft with merge data and returns the result without saving or sending. It explicitly distinguishes from create_template and other template operations. The verb 'Render' and resource 'template draft' are specific, and the no-save/no-send distinction differentiates it from siblings like render_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 description explicitly advises 'Use to test a template before create_template,' providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the purpose is well-defined enough to infer usage boundaries.

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