ghl_create_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return value ('including its ID') and the email prerequisite, which adds value. However, it does not disclose other important behavioral traits like permission requirements, potential errors, or side effects beyond the obvious creation action. Moderate transparency.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second adds email-specific guidance and return behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 simple create operation with full schema coverage and a clear return statement, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is not explicitly distinguishing from ghl_create_email_builder_template, but the explicit channel types reduce ambiguity. Overall adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all properties, including the subject requirement and body format. The description reinforces these points ('For email, provide a subject and HTML body') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies since schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Create a new SMS, email, or WhatsApp template', identifying the specific verb, resource, and channel types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_create_email_builder_template by explicitly naming messaging channel types. The added detail about returning the template with its ID further clarifies the scope.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: creating messaging templates across three channel types. It also includes a specific guideline ('For email, provide a subject and HTML body'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as distinguishing from updating/deleting templates.

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