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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does meaningfully disclose a key safety guarantee: editing a draft can never change what a past delivery rendered, and published versions are immutable. It does not cover permissions, failure modes, or what happens to published state during an update, but the immutability context is valuable and goes beyond the basic 'update' framing.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the immutability caveat is delivered immediately after, earning its place by clarifying the tool's most important behavioral constraint.

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 that the schema covers all parameters and the description explains the draft-versus-published distinction, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool and understand the key safety implications. A deeper explanation of the template lifecycle or how a draft relates to a published version would make it fully complete, but the current description is adequate for the operation's complexity.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Update'), a precise resource ('one template draft'), and singles out a single item. The phrase 'draft' distinguishes it from sibling tools like template_publish, template_archive, and template_create, so an agent can clearly separate it from related operations.

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 gives useful context: this edits drafts rather than published versions, and past deliveries are unaffected. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools such as template_publish or template_create, leaving some selection reasoning implicit.

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