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

The annotations already indicate this is a write, destructive, and idempotent operation. The description adds value by specifying the effect (workspace-change), the retry protocol, and the required permission, which go beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction detected.

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 remarkably concise, with the core action first followed by essential operational details (effect, retry, permission, API reference). Every sentence earns its place and no information is redundant or padded.

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?

The tool has nested object parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations. The description covers the what, the workspace effect, the retry strategy, and the required permission. It does not describe the return value or when to use it vs create, but the output schema and clear purpose mitigate that. Missing explicit contrast with sibling tools is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters beyond naming content and enabled state, but the schema already documents the parameters and their constraints. The description adds no new parameter semantics, so a score 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?

Clearly states the tool updates the content or enabled state of an existing email template. The verb 'updates' and resource 'email template' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like email_templates_create, email_templates_get, and email_templates_list.

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?

Provides actionable usage guidance by instructing to retry after reading the current resource state, which is important for conflict resolution. It also mentions the required permission and the workspace-change effect. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or give a when/when-not to use, though the purpose makes this largely implicit.

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