create_template_version

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: mutation is safe by default because the new version is inactive unless 'active' is set to 1. This explains why it won't affect production sends. No additional details on auth or rate limits, but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

One sentence that immediately delivers the key purpose and behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place, front-loaded with 'Mutating but safe-by-default'.

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?

The tool is simple with no output schema. The description covers creation and default state adequately. Could mention that the new version is created under the specified template_id, but this is implied. Complete given the complexity.

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% with good descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the rationale for default active=0 ('so edits do not immediately affect production sends'), which goes beyond the schema's 'Optional active flag. Defaults to 0.'.

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 it creates a new dynamic template version from edited content, distinguishing it from 'create_template' (creates new template) and 'activate_template_version' (activates version). The verb 'create' paired with 'version' precisely identifies the resource.

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: safe-by-default with inactive new version. It implies using this to create drafts before activating, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to 'update_template_version' or 'activate_template_version'. The guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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