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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the write-scope requirement, but does not explain the notable destructiveHint semantics on an update (e.g., whether omitted fields are cleared, or whether changes are reversible).

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

For a single-resource mutation with full schema coverage and a rich annotation set, the description is minimally sufficient: it identifies the target and the required scope. It omits update semantics that matter here (partial vs. full replacement, effect on unspecified fields), which is the notable gap given there is no output schema.

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 all six parameters including the enums (module, status) and the work_category_id lookup hint are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 'by ID' requirement and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, matching the baseline for a fully documented 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing form template') and identifies the keying parameter ('by ID'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It does not distinguish this from close siblings such as update_form_template_item, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 states a prerequisite ('Requires form_templates:write scope'), which is useful context for gating a call, but it gives no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and never names alternatives like create_form_template or update_form_template_item. Usage is only implicitly inferable from the name.

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