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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description meaningfully supplements them: it discloses optimistic concurrency control, the exact conflict signal, and the partial-update contract. It never says that supplying body/html/markdown replaces the entire document irreversibly — that is implied by "replace the document" but not spelled out as a warning.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the required concurrency input and the conflict outcome. No restatement of the tool name or schema details, and every clause carries distinct 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 6-parameter mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description covers the required inputs, the failure mode, and the update semantics adequately. Gaps are the destructive nature of document replacement and what to do after a conflict (re-read with get_template); otherwise an agent can call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding conflict semantics to base_revision ("the revision you read; a newer revision answers template_version_conflict") and the omit-to-keep rule that governs name, body, markdown, and html. It adds no guidance on choosing between the three document-input parameters (body vs markdown vs html), which the schema only hints at.

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?

"Change a template" states a specific verb and resource, and the follow-up sentences sharpen it into a partial-update operation on a document plus name. It does not name any sibling (create_template, delete_template, preview_template) to draw the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear preconditions for calling: you must send base_revision, the revision you actually read, or the call answers template_version_conflict. The omission rule ("what you leave out stays as it was") tells the agent not to resend untouched fields. There is no explicit routing to alternatives such as preview_template before saving or get_template to re-read after a conflict.

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