upsert_email_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates or updates (mutation) and mentions field-level restrictions for system templates. However, it does not discuss permissions, idempotency, rate limits, or error states, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and adds critical constraints in the second. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main upsert logic and constraints but misses return value description, error scenarios, and concurrency behavior. It is adequate for basic usage but could be more complete for an 8-parameter tool.

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 88%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'name' is required for new templates (schema lists it as optional) and specifies which fields can be updated for system templates. This compensates for the missing description on project_id and provides conditional usage context.

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 'Create or update an email template' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on email templates, and provides additional context about required fields for new templates and restrictions for system templates.

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 gives some usage conditions (e.g., 'name' required for new templates, system template field restrictions) but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like create_record, update_record, preview_email_template, or delete_email_template. It lacks when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.

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