email_templates_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reasonably discloses that templates support dynamic variable replacement and that creating a default template may affect other templates (implied by isDefault semantics). However, it does not cover output/return behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if a default already exists for a category.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Create a new email template'), then secondary details about variables and category defaults. Every sentence earns its place with no padding. Slightly more could be added but it is adequately compact.

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 6 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for usage. It could benefit from noting whether templates are company-scoped, what happens when setting a default when one already exists, and behavior around Markdown/variables. These are meaningful gaps for a tool that agents may call when managing email configuration.

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 documents all 6 parameters. The description adds value by explaining dynamic variable behavior and the category enum options, but the schema descriptions for body, name, subject, companyId, and isDefault already carry most of the meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate though the dynamic-variable explanation enhances subject/body understanding.

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 'a new email template' and immediately explains the key feature (dynamic variables). It specifies the category parameter maps to document type with enumerated values. Distinguishes from sibling tools (email_templates_update/delete/list) by the 'create' action.

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 explains the category parameter's use and default values, and implies a use case (creating templates that support dynamic variables). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs email_templates_update, nor mention prerequisites like whether a company context is needed or how defaulting interacts with existing defaults.

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