Create Visualforce Email Template

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about the plain-text body requirement and the need for Visualforce markup, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behaviors like whether an existing template is overwritten, uniqueness constraints, or error handling, beyond what annotations cover.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then lists the required inputs. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy with the schema. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers the essential inputs and the purpose, and the schema covers all parameters. Given there is no output schema, a note about what happens on success or failure would improve completeness, but it is not strictly necessary for a create operation. The idempotentHint=true might warrant a mention of overwrite behavior, but the overall description is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning by enumerating the key parameters (template name, subject, recipient type, related entity type, HTML body) and explaining the reason for requiring textBody ('for email clients that don't support HTML'). It also lists the recipient type enum values, reinforcing the schema.

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 specific action: 'Creates a Visualforce email template in the Salesforce org.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_email_template (generic email template) and sf_create_visualforce_page/component by specifying the resource type as a Visualforce email template.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes sf_create_email_template, which likely serves a simpler use case, but the description does not mention this alternative or any exclusion criteria. The context of requiring plain-text body and Visualforce markup is implied but not framed as selection guidance.

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