Create form message templates

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable side effects: 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and the auth requirement. This goes beyond the structured data without contradicting it, enhancing the agent's understanding of impacts.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose, then providing the endpoint, key fields, and requirements in a compact manner. It includes a reference URL but stays within a few sentences, making it efficient without being verbose.

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?

While it covers essentials like endpoint, body fields, and auth requirements, it omits any information about the response format or behavior for a create operation. The query parameter is not explained (though schema suggests none are documented). The reference link partially compensates, but the lack of output schema and minimal body detail leaves some gaps.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaning by listing body fields (email, sms, voice) and confirming the confirm:true requirement, which the schema only states as a const. It also provides the exact endpoint and a reference link, adding value over the generic schema descriptions.

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 it creates form message templates, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like modify or get templates by the verb and endpoint, making the purpose 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?

It provides usage context by noting the requirement for operator write opt-in and confirm:true, but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like modify or get templates. No exclusions or alternative routing are given, leaving the choice partially to inference.

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