ghl_email_template_import

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive write operation. The description adds OAuth scopes and endpoint details, which provide some behavioral context, but does not describe side effects or what happens on success/failure.

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 with four short lines, no wasted words. However, the endpoint and OAuth info could be considered technical noise for an MCP context, slightly reducing front-loaded 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?

Given no output schema and the tool being a mutation, the description lacks expected return value information, error handling hints, or confirmation of required fields. It is minimal for a complete understanding.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema's property descriptions already provide, earning the baseline score.

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 'Import an email template' and 'Import a template from a provider URL', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ghl_email_template_create by highlighting the import-from-URL mechanism.

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 implies when to use (importing from a provider URL) and lists supported providers in the schema, but does not explicitly contrast with other email template tools (create, update, etc.) or provide exclusions.

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