components_v2_send_from_template

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing a two-phase confirmation flow: first a review returns payload_hash and one-time approval_id, then the send requires __confirm:true, the exact __confirm_hash, and __confirm_id before expiry. It also warns that the send happens only once, which is meaningful behavioral transparency not present in the annotations.

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 well-structured with bolded Purpose/Templates/Returns sections and no filler. Every sentence delivers either scoping, parameter context, or behavioral workflow detail. The critical confirmation flow is explained compactly yet completely.

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 tool with six parameters, multiple templates, and a non-trivial confirmation workflow, the description covers everything needed: what it does, which templates exist, how vars work, what is returned, and how to complete the send. Given the rich schema and annotations plus this description, no critical operational detail is missing.

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 six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful flow-level meaning by explaining how vars map to template placeholders and how the confirmation parameters fit into the two-step send process, elevating it slightly above schema-only 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 states a specific verb ('apply variables to a built-in V2 template and send the result') and names the exact resource scope. It also enumerates the five available template names, making the tool's function concrete and distinguishable from generic send/build tools like components_v2_send.

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 makes clear the tool is for built-in templates and that vars are passed to template placeholders, giving a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use this tool, but the built-in-template framing implies when this path is appropriate versus building/sending custom components.

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