Email Manage Tool

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly labeling theme_delete and template_delete as destructive and explaining the blockage when a theme is in use. It also discloses that template_generate consumes credits and compiles MJML server-side. This level of detail exceeds the annotation's bare hint.

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 moderately long but well-structured into paragraphs for general info, theme actions, and template actions. Each sentence carries relevant information (e.g., credit consumption, MJML compilation). Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it's efficient.

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 34 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key workflows: dependencies (theme deletion blocked), credit costs for generation, and the difference between MJML and HTML storage. It lacks details on error responses or pagination for list actions, but it adequately addresses the tool's 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into actions (e.g., theme_create uses name and styles object) and explaining parameter relationships (e.g., mjml_body preferred over html_body, theme_id injects brand colors into generated MJML). It also notes default values for several 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 it manages email themes (visual styling) and templates (transactional + marketing copy). It lists specific actions for themes and templates, including AI generation via template_generate. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which have different domains (e.g., admin_manage, credential_manage).

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 context for when to use each action, such as distinguishing theme operations from template operations and noting that template_generate consumes credits. It also explains a dependency: deleting a theme fails if templates reference it. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., outbound_manage for sending), the guidance is clear for the tool's scope.

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