Tạo mẫu email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the {{ten_bien}} variable-substitution convention, but it doesn't state what happens on success or error, whether template names must be unique, overwrite behavior, or the response format — a bare 'create' with no consequences leaves an agent guessing.

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 short sentences, roughly 20 words, with the when-condition front-loaded. But the bilingual halves are partially redundant (both convey 'create reusable template'), and the English 'Use to create...' is grammatically awkward, which slightly undermines clarity.

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 5-parameter, 3-required creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is underspecified. An agent still cannot tell what name/subject/text should contain, whether text is optional despite existing, or what a successful creation returns — the description must carry more weight given how little structured context exists.

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 only 20% (just idempotency_key is documented), so the description must compensate. It adds the {{ten_bien}} variable convention relevant to html, but the semantics of name, subject, and text (e.g., text as a plain-text fallback) are unexplained in both schema and description.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('create a reusable email template'), and the Vietnamese clause adds a trigger scenario ('when the app reuses mail content'). The word 'email' scopes it away from agent_templates_list/agent_templates_get, but the description doesn't explicitly name or differentiate from those siblings.

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 Vietnamese clause implies when to use it — when the app reuses mail content — which provides recognizable context. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., mail_send for one-off sends), so routing an agent to the correct tool still requires inference.

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