Tạo mẫu email

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds only the placeholder-variable convention; it says nothing about permission requirements, validation rules (subject cannot contain CR/LF, name max 255), or what happens on a duplicate name. Useful but thin beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, no padding. The bilingual duplication costs a little scanning effort but does not bury the operative content.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 20% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about required-parameter meaning, constraints on html/text/subject, and retry semantics. Annotations cover safety but not the operational detail this tool needs.

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 20% (only idempotency_key is documented), leaving name, subject, html and text with no semantics anywhere. The description mentions {{ten_bien}} for template bodies but never explains the distinct roles of name, subject, html and text, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb+resource (create a reusable email template) and adds the reuse trigger plus the {{ten_bien}} placeholder convention, so the agent knows the artifact being produced. It does not need sibling differentiation since no other mail_template_* tool exists in the list.

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 clause 'Khi app dùng lại nội dung mail' implies when to reach for a template instead of sending inline, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. mail_send), and no prerequisites such as needed scopes or domain verification.

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