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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which is a fairly complete safety profile. The description adds nothing on top: it doesn't say which fields in 'input' are mutable, what the destruction risk actually is, or whether omitted fields are preserved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, but it is spare to the point of under-specification for a destructive mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive update with an open-ended nested 'input' object the description gives an agent nothing about required permissions, destructive consequence, or merge semantics. Too thin for this complexity.

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 the schema already documents templateId ('Item ID') and input ('Fields to update'). The description's 'by ID' confirms templateId's role but adds nothing about the free-form input object, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

State a specific verb ('Update') plus resource ('followup template') and scope ('by ID'), so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling create/get/list followup-template tools, which are equally plausible on name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, even though glpi_get_itil_followup_template and glpi_create_itil_followup_template sit in the same family. The only inference available is that it modifies an existing template rather than creating one.

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