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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose helpful side effects like DSL revalidation and null-clearing behavior, but it does not mention authentication requirements, idempotency, or other potential side effects of an update operation.

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 concise and well-structured, using two sentences to convey the core action, field semantics, and key behavioral notes. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 description is contextually complete for an update operation with no output schema: it specifies what can be updated, how to clear fields, and a key validation behavior. It could mention return values or error cases, but these are not required given the absence of an output schema.

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 40%, but the description adds meaningful semantics for dsl by noting revalidation, and for description and sampleData by explaining null-to-clear versus omit-to-keep behavior. It does not add detail beyond the schema for templateId or name, though those are relatively self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'saved template,' naming the specific fields affected: DSL, name, description, and sampleData. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_template by focusing on updating an existing saved template rather than creating or retrieving one.

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 explains important usage semantics such as passing null to clear fields and omitting fields to leave them unchanged, and it notes that DSL is revalidated when provided. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus save_template or other sibling tools, leaving some inference required.

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