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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation; the description usefully adds the gating behavior (tier-based denial, grace-period warning, block-on-denied-access) that annotations cannot express. However, it discloses nothing about the mutation semantics themselves: all five parameters are required, implying a full replacement of template fields, yet the description never says whether unmentioned settings are cleared, whether existing versions are affected, or how failures surface. Useful access context, significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the wording is imperative and scannable, but the access-control guidance repeats itself: "check business permissions," "Call check_business_tool_access," and "never proceed when access is blocked" convey overlapping constraints across three sentences. The bulk of the text is spent on gating rather than on the operation.

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 with five required parameters, nested metadata/pricingConfig objects, and no output schema, the description covers access preconditions well but leaves the core operation underspecified. An agent knows whether it may call the tool but not what the call will actually change or what to put in the nested objects.

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 100%, so all five parameters (communityId, templateId, thumbnailImgSrc, metadata, pricingConfig) are documented at the schema level; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, notably omitting what belongs in the free-form metadata and pricingConfig nested objects.

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?

"Update an AI Cofounder template" restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, adding no scope, no indication of which template fields are writable, and no distinction from sibling tools like create_ai_cofounder_template_version. Everything after the first sentence is access policy, not purpose. An agent learns nothing about the operation itself that the name didn't already say.

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?

Explicitly states a hard prohibition (FREE businesses cannot use this tool regardless of feature rows), names the exact prerequisite tool (check_business_tool_access) and the ordering (before collecting inputs / before offering the action), and requires surfacing grace-period and resubscribe information. What's missing is routing guidance among siblings such as create_ai_cofounder_template_version, so it's clear context without alternatives.

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