post--v3-domain_name-templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Create a template' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns a template ID). It mentions creation but lacks details like whether it overwrites existing templates or requires unique names. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

While concise with two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to front-load critical information (e.g., 'Create an email template for a domain') and doesn't earn its place by adding value. It's too sparse to be helpful, scoring low for structure despite being short.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose, usage, or behavioral aspects needed for an agent to invoke it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for a creation tool in a domain with multiple sibling tools.

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 description coverage is high (88%), with most parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'name' supports utf-8 and downcasing, 'headers' specifies supported keys). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. According to rules, with high coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, as the schema carries the burden.

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 'Create a template' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'post--v3-domain_name-templates'. It lacks specificity about what kind of template is being created (e.g., email template for a domain) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'post--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name-versions', which also creates template versions. A more helpful description would specify the resource and context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a domain_name), compare it to sibling tools like 'put--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name' (which updates templates) or 'get--v3-domain_name-templates' (which lists templates), or indicate any constraints. This leaves the agent with no context for tool selection.

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