Compose Template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Automatically connects and disconnects from the editor,' warns that skipping get-tiptap-json-content will 'overwrite all existing content,' and explicitly notes that switching between compose and update modes is 'lossy' and that HTML content may be lost. These side effects are critical for safe usage.

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 somewhat long but well-structured with bold section headers (Purpose, Workflow, When to use, Important, Note). Each section adds value, though there is some redundancy with the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., the 'Important' note repeats the content parameter's description). It earns a high score for clarity and organization, but loses a point for minor repetition.

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 complex tool involving TipTap JSON, dashboard editor connectivity, and potential data loss, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the full workflow, prerequisites, side effects, and when to defer to the user. It also addresses the nuance of switching from HTML to compose mode, which is essential for avoiding destructive actions. No output schema is present, but for a mutation tool this is acceptable.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., content param says 'Call get-tiptap-json-content (with include_schema: true) first...'). The tool description repeats this advice but doesn't add significant new semantics beyond the schema. It reinforces the workflow but does not go beyond what structured fields already convey.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set the TipTap JSON content of a template, enabling it to be edited visually in the Resend dashboard editor.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it can 'also update metadata (subject, name) in the same call' and by highlighting that it is 'the recommended way to set email content' compared to raw HTML updates.

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 explicit usage guidance: a 'When to use' list (after create-template, when user wants to write/edit/style email content, when collaborating in dashboard), a recommended workflow (get-tiptap-json-content → compose-template), and a caution about not using it when template already has HTML content without asking. It also implies an alternative (update/raw HTML mode) by referring to it.

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