Himalaya MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this generates a new template (creation behavior) and explains the MML format context, but doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens if the account doesn't exist. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a creation 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 efficiently structured with purpose first, then return value explanation, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value: format explanation, connection to sending, and parameter semantics. No wasted words.

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 has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), 2 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains purpose, usage context, and parameters well. The only minor gap is lack of behavioral details like permissions or error cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'account' (default behavior when omitted) and 'headers' (format and example). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, especially the headers format example which is crucial for correct usage.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('new email template'), specifies the format ('MML format'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning template_send. It goes beyond just restating the name to explain what the tool actually produces.

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 about when to use this tool ('Returns a blank email template that can be filled in and sent via template_send'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The connection to template_send is helpful guidance.

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