Create an email template

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

Annotations only indicate a read-write operation with no destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: only template metadata is returned, and the stored HTML is sanitised so the saved template can differ from what was submitted. This goes beyond what the schema and annotations already convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes: the primary action, the relationship to campaigns, the sanitisation behavior, and the return value guidance. 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?

The description is largely complete for a creation tool: it explains what a template is, how it is used by campaigns, that HTML is sanitised, and what the response contains. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly point an agent to reach_listProfilesV1 or reach_listEmailTemplatesV1 for resolving profileUuid or checking existing templates, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful cross-tool context around the returned uuid and template_uuid, but does not materially clarify the parameters themselves beyond what the input schema provides. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Create an email template') and resource ('in a profile'), then clarifies its purpose: holding the HTML body a campaign reuses. It clearly distinguishes the tool from campaign creation tools like reach_createADraftCampaignV1, even without naming a sibling explicitly.

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 gives clear usage context: the template can be created before any campaign exists, and the returned uuid is later used as template_uuid for a campaign. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, but it provides enough context for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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