fonzip_templates

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is destructive, read-write, and non-idempotent. The description merely restates that delete/update/create operations exist and adds no additional behavioral context such as effects on related data, authorization needs, or irreversible actions.

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 single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource and lists operations efficiently, though it is so terse that it misses opportunities to provide richer guidance.

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?

With 25 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and an action-driven design, a one-line description is insufficient. The schema helps, but the description does not clarify per-action invocation patterns, required fields beyond the bracketed notes, or expected return behavior.

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 carries the parameter documentation burden. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the operations, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the resource as email/message templates and lists the five CRUD operations (list, detail, create, update, delete). It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from sibling fonzip_* tools that target different resources, though it does not name a sibling or highlight unique scope.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. An agent must infer usage solely from the resource name and the action enum in the schema.

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