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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the template re-enters review after editing, name and language cannot be changed, and the header_video_url/header_text mutual exclusivity rule. It also notes the daily edit limit for approved templates. The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It could add more about failure modes or rate limits, but the provided context is strong.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then layering constraints. It is a single paragraph with clear logical flow: what can be edited, what cannot, special rules, and post-edit behavior. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it packs many clauses into one long sentence, which could be slightly harder to parse, but it remains efficient and free of fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the critical operational context: editability constraints, review re-entry, header exclusivity, and reference to create_template for placeholder rules. It doesn't explicitly describe the return value beyond 'Returns the updated template row,' which is sufficient. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by that statement. A 4 is appropriate because it is complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention rate limits or error cases.

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 38%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the header_video_url/header_text mutual exclusivity, the 'one header only' rule, and the placeholder/example rules referencing create_template. It also clarifies that template_id is the DripRaven template id from list_templates. However, it doesn't detail every parameter (e.g., body_examples, buttons structure), but the schema covers those with descriptions, so the combination is adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an existing template's category and/or content (body, header, footer, buttons).' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_template and delete_template by focusing on editing existing templates and enumerating the editable fields.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it states that Meta only allows editing templates that are APPROVED, REJECTED, or PAUSED (not PENDING), and that approved templates are limited to a few edits per day. It also names the sibling create_template for placeholder/example rules, giving the agent clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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