create_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states 'Create' which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, rate limits, whether the template is immediately usable, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 the complexity of creating a WhatsApp template (with 5 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (like permissions or side effects), doesn't explain the relationship with sibling tools, and provides no guidance on usage. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate for these gaps.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters. Since the schema fully documents each parameter (e.g., 'template_name' as 'Name for the new template'), the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also doesn't provide additional context like examples or constraints not in the schema.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new WhatsApp message template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_templates' or 'send_template_message' by focusing on creation rather than listing or sending. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (though none exist in the sibling list), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a business account), compare it to similar tools like 'send_template_message', or specify use cases (e.g., for marketing vs. authentication). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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