Email: templates update

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing blast radius ('every email of that type the project sends from then on uses it'), the merge semantics ('keeping whichever you leave out'), and the irreversible loss of prior content ('the previous content isn't kept'). It also flags the confirmation requirement for a destructive write.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers merge semantics, the parameter hint, the draft-check, and the safety warning. Four sentences, all substantive, though the merge-semantics clause is slightly wordy.

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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema update tool, the description covers scope, merge behavior, reversibility, parameter disambiguation, and the recommended verification path. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by clarifying 'Pass the body inline in content_text', disambiguating it from the file/stdin 'content' parameter. It doesn't elaborate on template_type values or subject, but the schema carries those.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a template's subject and/or content') and pins the scope to 'one template type'. This distinguishes it cleanly from email_templates_show, email_templates_list, and email_preview without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent to the alternative ('Check a draft first with email_preview') and gives a precondition ('check with the user before running it') plus when-not guidance implied by the destructive nature. Nothing about when to use this vs. siblings is left to inference.

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