Create Email Template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as merge field support and folder path examples, but does not discuss side effects, overwrite behavior, or permissions. It neither contradicts the annotations nor significantly expands on them.

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 a short paragraph of four sentences, each contributing meaningful information without excessive length. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds supporting details. It is appropriately concise for a 13-parameter tool, though not as tight as a two-sentence version.

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?

The tool is complex with 13 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only mentions HTML and text template types, omitting the 'custom' and 'visualforce' options in the enum. It also does not explain when to use 'body' versus 'htmlValue', which could lead the agent to send incomplete data. These gaps make the description insufficient for fully confident invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable parameter-level guidance by providing concrete folder path examples ('unfiled$public/MyTemplate'), merge field syntax ('{!Account.Name}'), and the role of relatedEntityType for object-specific merge fields. These enrich the bare 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 the tool creates an HTML or text email template and specifies its use cases (Workflow Email Alerts, Approval Processes, manual sends). This distinguishes it from related siblings like sf_create_visualforce_email_template, 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?

The description provides context for when to use the tool (workflow alerts, approval processes, manual sends) and implies HTML/text email templates rather than Visualforce. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full comparative guidance.

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