conduyt_create_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 and fails to do so: it says nothing about permissions, whether templates are immediately active, defaults, validation failures, or side effects. The only behavioral hint (server-side HTML sanitization) lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. Brevity is appropriate, though it borders on under-specification given the tool's mutation semantics.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves real gaps: nothing on what a successful create returns (an ID?), permission requirements, or the interaction between body, bodyHtml, and subject across channels. The rich schema partially compensates, keeping it at minimum viable.

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 100% with clear per-parameter descriptions and a channel enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which is the baseline 3 case when coverage is high.

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 ("Create") plus resource ("email or SMS template") identifies the operation and the two supported channels. It doesn't explicitly differentiate it from siblings like conduyt_list_templates or conduyt_update_template, but the create semantics are unambiguous.

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?

States no conditions for when to use this tool versus conduyt_update_template, conduyt_get_template, or conduyt_list_templates, and gives no prerequisites such as required permissions or channel-specific requirements.

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