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

Annotations already mark it as non-read-only, and the description adds the useful behavior that it performs a partial update rather than a full replacement. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or what happens to omitted fields beyond the implication that they remain unchanged, but this is a simple update with an output schema.

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 compact sentence with no filler; the key partial-update instruction is front-loaded right after the verb+resource.

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 three-parameter update with a full schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is adequate: the only missing context is explicit guidance about when to choose this over create_template, but the verb and title make that reasonably clear.

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 each parameter (id, name, description) is already documented. The description adds the crucial semantic that name and description are optional and only changed when included, which the schema alone does not express.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update a template') and adds partial-update semantics ('only include the fields you want to change'), so an agent can tell it is a patch-style mutation of a template. It does not explicitly contrast with create_template, get_template, or archive_template, though the verb itself implies the distinction.

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 phrase 'only include the fields you want to change' conveys how to call the tool, and the name implies the use case of modifying an existing template. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the many create/list/archive siblings.

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