Publish 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 for behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: re-publishing a previously published template makes the latest changes live, indicating the action updates the live version. It also implies idempotency (re-publishing is possible) and the prerequisite for sending. Still, it could have mentioned permissions or what happens to unpublished changes, but overall it communicates the essential state change.

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 consists of three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: first states the action, second explains the prerequisite, third describes re-publishing behavior and accepted input forms. There is no wasted content, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and behavioral effects. It does not mention error conditions or return values, but given the low complexity and clear sibling differentiation, it is sufficiently complete. A more exhaustive description might include idempotency or error scenarios, but these are not critical.

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?

The input schema already describes the 'id' parameter comprehensively, including the ability to use a template ID, alias, or Resend dashboard URL. The description repeats this same information without adding new details or examples. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Publish an email template in Resend.' The verb-resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools like create-template or update-template, which do not cover publishing. The additional context about templates needing to be published before sending further clarifies its unique role.

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 clear context for when to use this tool, stating that templates must be published before they can be used for sending emails, and that re-publishing makes latest changes live. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though this is implied by the workflow context.

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