create_template

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

The description discloses authentication ('Authenticated via API key'), rate limits ('Max 10 concurrent requests'), and modes ('Respects read-only and dry-run modes'). While it does not detail all edge cases, it provides sufficient behavioral context beyond the missing 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, starting with the primary purpose, then usage guidelines, behavior, parameters, and return value. Each sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters in detail, and describes the return format (id, name, type, active, date_created). It includes HTML requirements and optional folder context, making it complete enough for agent invocation.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: name is a display name (with example), html must be valid with inline CSS and supports merge tags, and folder_id is optional obtained from UI. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/required fields.

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 'Create a new reusable email template from HTML content.' It specifies the verb (create) and resource (reusable email template), and differentiates from siblings like set_campaign_content and list_templates by providing explicit guidance on when to use each.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('to save HTML email designs for reuse across campaigns'), provides alternatives (get_template_default_content, list_templates), and clearly states when not to use it ('Do not use for one-off emails; use set_campaign_content directly instead').

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