Create template

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

Annotations already declare the write/not-destructive/not-idempotent/openWorld profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: templates become referenceable by id from sends, campaigns and workflow steps, and the call returns the created template with its id. It omits auth/verification requirements and failure behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Four labeled sections (Purpose, Not for, Returns, Use when) in a few short sentences, with purpose and the exclusion front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and the description states the return shape ('the created template including its id'), so the return side is covered without an output schema. However, for an 8-parameter create tool the description leaves most parameter semantics undocumented, which is a real gap for correct 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?

There are 8 parameters with only 25% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them — not 'type' (the one enum: TRANSACTIONAL/MARKETING/HEADLESS), not 'replyTo'/'fromName'/'description', and not the required-vs-optional split. With low schema coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a reusable email template') plus the reason it exists — sends, campaigns, and workflow steps reference it by id. This cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like plunk_update_template, plunk_duplicate_template, and plunk_get_template.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and when not to use this tool ('A one-off email. plunk_send_transactional takes an inline subject and body'), then gives the positive selection condition ('The same email will be sent more than once, or a workflow step needs something to point at'). Nothing is left to inference.

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