save-template

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that templates are written to an on-disk store, persist across restarts, and that passing an existing id overwrites. It also mentions the return value (name and id). This is strong coverage, though it doesn't address permissions or error conditions.

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 structured paragraph with labeled sections (Use when, Returns, Do not use when, Safety). Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose. It remains efficient and scannable.

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?

Covers creation, update, return values, persistence/overwrite behavior, and exclusions. With an output schema noted, it fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly. No critical 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 only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining the role of core parameters: name, subject, body, optional to/cc, and id for updating. It clarifies that id distinguishes update from creation, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 or updates reusable email templates, naming the key fields (name, subject, body, to/cc). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning updating via id and explicitly contrasting with use-template, create-draft, and send-email.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, naming alternative tools (create-draft, send-email, use-template) for other scenarios. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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