email_templates_create

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description adds only the dynamic-variable substitution behavior and the category default. It says nothing about required permissions, whether creating a default template displaces an existing default, or validation of body/subject variables.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, zero filler. The middle sentence on dynamic variables earns its place; the category sentence is partly redundant with the schema.

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 6-param creation tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the description covers what the resource is and the one non-obvious content behavior (variable substitution at send time). Missing only edge-case behavior around isDefault/companyId, which the schema describes adequately.

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 all six parameters are already documented. The description's category sentence merely restates the schema's enum and default, adding no new meaning for name/subject/body, while the more consequential companyId override and isDefault conflict rule are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new email template') and immediately scopes it with the variable/dynamic-content behavior. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the create/list/update/delete naming makes the distinction reasonably evident.

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?

Creation intent is implied clearly, but there is no explicit when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. permissions, companyId override), and no pointer to email_templates_update for modifying an existing template.

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