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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. It does not mention whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether existing data is overwritten, any side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description contributes no additional context, earning a low score.

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?

While the one-sentence description is concise, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It conveys no actionable information and does not earn its place because it merely restates the tool's name. This is a case of under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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 is completely inadequate for a tool with nested objects, multiple optional fields, and no output schema. It gives no indication of update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), required vs. optional fields, or the consequences of an update. The agent is left with almost no context to make an informed decision, making this a very incomplete definition.

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 does not mention any parameter, even though the schema has a nested __requestBody object with multiple fields. Schema coverage is moderate (50% at the top level) with many subfields described, but the description fails to clarify that templateId identifies which template to update or that __requestBody contains the mutable attributes. Thus the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 'Update an enrichment template' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'enrichment_templates-update'. It identifies the verb and resource but provides no additional specifics about what updating entails, how it differs from creating or deleting, or what fields are involved. It is a tautology rather than a useful purpose statement.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like enrichment_templates-create or enrichment_templates-delete. There are no prerequisites, no context about typical scenarios, and no explanation of how updates fit into the overall workflow. Usage is not implied beyond the basic meaning of 'update'.

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