use-template

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it creates a draft in Mail.app for user review and sends a confirmation. It does not mention side effects beyond creating a draft, which is adequate for a non-destructive action.

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 concise (3 sentences) and well-structured with clear 'Use when', 'Returns', and 'Do not use when' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality and return value (confirmation). However, it could mention that the draft remains editable by the user, though this is implied.

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?

The description adds context to parameters beyond the schema by noting that recipients, subject, and body are optional overrides. With 80% schema coverage, the description reinforces the purpose of each override, especially clarifying that id is a template identifier.

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's purpose: composing a new draft from a saved template by id, with optional overrides. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-template and send-email, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 explicitly states when to use (composing a draft from a template) and when not to use (inspecting template via get-template, or sending directly via send-email). This provides clear guidance for selection.

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