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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit an existing SMS template' conveys that the operation mutates state and requires the resource to already exist, but it does not explain whether fields are partially updated or wholly replaced, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the id does not exist. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, making brevity more of a deficiency than an asset.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this is not complete. The description leaves out field semantics, update behavior, and any indication of what a successful edit returns. An agent could guess the basics from the tool name stub 'sms_templates_update', but the description does not sufficiently equip it to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, but it names no parameters. It does not clarify that 'id' identifies the template or that 'body' and 'name' are the editable fields. The schema's property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no parameter semantics.

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 ('Edit'), a specific resource ('SMS template'), and scopes it to an existing entity, which clearly differentiates it from sms_templates_create, sms_templates_get, sms_templates_list, and sms_templates_delete. An agent can infer what this tool does immediately from the description alone.

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 word 'existing' implies this is for updating already-created templates rather than creating new ones, and the sibling names reinforce that. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sms_templates_create or sms_templates_get, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as needing a valid template id.

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