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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the valuable lifecycle fact that edits are not live until published, but omits partial-update semantics (are omitted fields preserved or cleared?), editor-mode switching effects, and variable validation.

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 the disclosure front-loaded and no filler. The pronoun 'it' in the second sentence is slightly ambiguous (it could be misread as this tool performing the publish).

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?

With 9 parameters, 44% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should carry more weight. It provides no field-level guidance and no return-value expectations, leaving an agent under-informed for a 9-parameter mutation.

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 coverage is only 44% across 9 parameters, and the description says nothing about any of them. Key ambiguities remain unaddressed in both schema and description: which fields are optional, whether the 'editor' enum changes how 'html'/'text' are interpreted, and how reply_to string-vs-array is handled.

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?

Names a specific verb (update) and resource (template) and adds the meaningful qualifier 'draft', which distinguishes it from publish-template and create-template. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, and it doesn't clarify behavior for templates already published.

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?

'Publish it to make the change live' implies the draft-then-publish workflow, which is real guidance, but the alternative tool (publish-template) is never named and no conditions or prerequisites are stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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