components_v2_send_from_template

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that it sends a message and returns message metadata, which is useful. It does not disclose additional side effects or failure modes, but the annotation coverage keeps the baseline at 3.

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 concise, with bold section labels for Purpose, Templates, and Returns. Every sentence carries information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete for a send-from-template tool. The only shortcoming is the confusing 'v1' reference, but this does not materially impact the agent's ability to use the tool.

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 already documents all three parameters with full coverage, including enums and descriptions. The description adds the note that each template declares a variables list, which helps understand the vars object, but this is marginal value beyond 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 ('apply variables to a built-in V2 template and send the result') and lists the exact template names, which differentiates it from generic send or preview tools. However, the use of 'Templates v1' alongside 'V2 template' introduces minor ambiguity.

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 purpose implies when to use this tool (sending template-based messages with variable substitution), and the return format gives some context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like components_v2_preview for previewing or when not to use this tool.

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