Create Message Template

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

Annotations cover the basic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the agent knows this is a non-destructive creation operation with open-world semantics and no idempotence. The description adds that placeholders are supported in subject/body, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate names.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. Every element (create action, template type, key components) earns its place, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 creation tool with good annotations (covering safety) and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what's being created. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., template ID, confirmation), and it lacks usage context that would help an agent decide when to invoke it versus alternatives.

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 each parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions placeholders for subject/body and delivery channels, which aligns with but doesn't significantly expand upon the schema documentation. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('notification template') along with the key components (subject, body with placeholders, delivery channels). It distinguishes this from other template-related tools like 'dual_create_template' by specifying it's for message/notification templates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dual_send_notification' which might be a closer sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_create_template' or 'dual_send_notification'. The description lists what it creates but doesn't provide context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or when this specific template creation is appropriate versus other notification methods.

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