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

Annotations already declare this as destructive and non-idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by saying the email document is replaced and that built-in templates cannot be changed. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or response behavior, but it adds useful context beyond the annotation profile.

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 compact sentences front-load the available edit operations and then immediately state the built-in template limitation. Every sentence contributes directly to correct tool selection or invocation.

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?

The description covers the main mutation types and a key restriction, which is adequate given the destructive/non-idempotent annotations. It remains incomplete for a nested document replacement operation with no output schema, because it does not explain document structure, partial-update behavior for omitted fields, or expected results.

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 40%, so the description compensates by naming the mutable fields: name, description, category, and document. However, it does not clarify templateId semantics beyond the schema, optional-versus-required update behavior, or the nested structure of the document object.

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 specific set of update operations on a clearly identified resource: renaming a saved template, changing its description/category, or replacing its document. This distinguishes it from create/delete/get/list template siblings without needing to open schemas.

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?

It makes the relevant usage context clear by describing edits to saved templates and explicitly excludes built-in templates. It does not name an alternative tool for cases such as applying versus editing templates, so it falls just short of fully explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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