create_sms

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

The description reveals key behavioral traits: the tool is deprecated and relies on removed API classes, implying it may not function. Although no annotations exist, this warning compensates well by alerting the agent to potential failure.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loads the critical deprecation info. While efficient, it lacks structured details that could be beneficial, earning a 4.

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 is deprecated and has no output schema, the description adequately warns agents about its status and reason for deprecation. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable given the context.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters (name, message, isPublished). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates an SMS template ('Create SMS template'), which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not provide differentiation from sibling 'create_*' tools, leaving agents to infer uniqueness.

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?

Explicitly marks the tool as deprecated with 'DEPRECATED in Mautic 7' and notes that 'SMS API classes have been removed', giving clear guidance that this tool should be avoided. This effectively tells the agent when not to use it.

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