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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: the DSL is revalidated when provided, and the null-vs-omit contract for clearing vs. preserving fields. It omits auth/permission requirements, what happens if revalidation fails, and whether the update is atomic.

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 tightly written sentences; the core update action leads, followed by the revalidation note and the null/omit contract. The trailing endpoint mapping is compact and useful, though it could be dropped without loss.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers field semantics and revalidation but says nothing about the response, error behavior, or the maxLength/512KB constraints that constrain a successful call. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 80%, so the schema already documents templateId slug/UUID handling and the null-clearing semantics for description and sampleData. The description repeats rather than extends that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (a saved template) and enumerates the mutable fields (DSL, name, description, sampleData). It implicitly contrasts with the create-oriented save_template sibling, but never names it or any other sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives: it doesn't say how this differs from save_template or when to prefer it over delete_template/get_template. The caller must infer that 'update' applies only to existing templates.

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