publish_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that TemplateValidator runs by default, that HTML is never exposed to agent context, and specifies the return values (success status, external_template_id, structured preview). No contradictions.

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 very concise with three short paragraphs. Each sentence adds value: main purpose, behavior details, and parameter guidance. No wasted words.

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 11 parameters and 8 required, the description lacks parameter explanations. It covers behavioral aspects and return values (aided by output schema), but is incomplete for understanding all inputs. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It only explains force and debug parameters, ignoring 9 others including required ones like title, components, template_id. This leaves agents without understanding of many parameters.

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 clearly states the action: 'Validate, build, and publish an email template to MoEngage.' It identifies the specific resource and verb, and distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_template or build_email_template by including validation and publishing.

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 guidance on when to use force=True to bypass validation and debug=True to save HTML. It implies the tool is for publishing, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like build_email_template. However, the context is clear enough.

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