Render email template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context by clarifying this is a POST admin endpoint whose result is a non-destructive 'preview', which explains why a 'get'-named tool is neither read-only nor destructive. It does not mention admin auth requirements, security scoping, or whether the render has side effects.

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?

Front-loaded and tight: purpose first, then a one-line clarification, then operational metadata. The title line duplicates the first sentence, which is minor waste, but otherwise every element earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should characterize the return value (e.g., rendered email HTML/subject), and it does not. With 2 required params and one undocumented, plus no detail on the template body payload, the definition is minimally adequate for calling the endpoint but under-explains inputs and results.

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 50%: 'template' is barely described ('template (request body)') and 'name' has no schema description. The operation line (POST /admin/notifications/templates/{name}) does add value by revealing that 'name' is a URL path segment and 'template' is the body, which the schema does not say. That is modest compensation but leaves the template body format and accepted values unexplained.

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+resource combination ('Render email template', 'Retrieve a preview of the provided email template'), which is clear and actionable. The gap is that it doesn't distinguish itself from the closest sibling, immich_send_test_email_admin, so an agent can't tell the preview-render tool apart from the test-send tool by this text alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The text only says to retrieve a preview, leaving the agent to infer when this admin template endpoint is appropriate versus send_test_email or other notification tools.

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