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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with a non-destructive mutation. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that only provided fields are changed, implying omitted fields remain untouched. This is valuable for an agent to understand the update semantics, and no contradiction exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core purpose and a key usage note without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately minimal for a simple update 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?

For a tool with only three parameters, a fully described schema, and an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description is complete. It covers the essential behavior (partial update) and the resource, and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing. The presence of an output schema means the description need not explain return values.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters (id, name, description) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's instruction to 'only include the fields you want to change' directly enhances the meaning of the optional parameters (name, description) by clarifying that they are partial-update fields, not required full replacements. This adds value beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'a template', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_template, archive_template, get_template, and list_templates. The phrase 'only include the fields you want to change' adds precision about the operation's partial-update nature, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly tells users to include only fields they want to change, which is a clear usage guideline for partial updates. It implies this tool is for modifying existing templates rather than creating or deleting them, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is useful but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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