treeflow_create_message_template

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool creates a template. It does not mention side effects, required ownership of tree_id, validation behavior, idempotency, or what happens after creation (e.g., whether the template is immediately available). This is minimal for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds relevant detail about the kinds of messages supported. It earns its place and remains easy to scan.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin for a tool with five parameters and a complex nested responses structure. It lacks guidance on expected return values, required parameter relationships (e.g., whether tree_id is validated), or common pitfalls. The schema covers parameter names, but the overall context for using the tool correctly is incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including detailed examples for the responses array. The description adds little beyond a high-level mention of rich formats, which is redundant with the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the structured schema handles parameter semantics well.

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 verb 'Crea' (creates) and the resource 'plantilla de mensaje (MessageTemplate)', making the tool's purpose obvious. It also hints at the tool's scope by listing supported rich response types (texto plano, botones, tarjetas, carruseles, audios), which helps distinguish it from other creation tools like create_tree or create_leaf.

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 implies use when creating a new message template, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus update_message_template, list_message_templates, or delete_message_template. There is no exclusionary language or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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