Create template

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral convention beyond that — the {{ name }} placeholder syntax used inside template bodies — but says nothing about whether names must be unique, what happens on duplicate names, or what the created template must contain.

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 with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the terse phrasing leaves the description doing very little work overall.

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?

A five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema needs more than two sentences: an agent is not told that a body field is effectively required, whether the template name is a unique identifier, or that the returned template id is what must later be passed to send_email's template_id. The key lifecycle detail motivating the tool is stated, but the contract for calling it correctly is not.

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 only 40% — name, html_template and text_template are completely undocumented in the schema, while variables and subject_template are described. The placeholder convention helps interpret subject_template/html_template/text_template, but the description does not say which body field is required, how `variables` relates to the placeholders actually appearing in the bodies, or that the placeholder example uses a variable literally called "name", which collides with the required `name` parameter and can mislead.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Create a template") plus a downstream consumer ("send with send_email's template_id"), which tells an agent exactly what this produces and how it gets used. It is clearly distinct from update_template/delete_template by verb, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"to send with send_email's template_id" implies the situation that motivates using this tool, but there is no when-not guidance (e.g. don't create a template for a one-off send, use send_email body fields directly) and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an html_template or text_template body.

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