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

Annotations already declare destructive=false, idempotent=true and readOnly=false, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses partial-update semantics ("only the fields you pass are replaced") and the immediacy of the effect on future renders. It does not mention auth requirements or error behavior for an invalid template_id, so it falls short of 5.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: identity, partial-update rule, and effect timing. The most decision-relevant constraint is front-loaded after the purpose statement.

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 7-parameter mutation tool whose schema is 100% documented and whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers identity, update semantics, and effect timing. Minor gaps remain: whether fields can be cleared/nulled and what happens on an unknown template_id, but no output schema exists and none is strictly required.

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% and the nested page_options object is fully documented in the schema, so the schema carries parameter meaning; the description adds no field-level detail. 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 and resource ("Change a saved template") that clearly identifies this as a mutation of an existing template, distinguish-able from create/delete/get/list by the verb alone. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or the partial-update style beyond the following sentence.

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 explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance or prerequisites (e.g. "use create_template for new templates", "get the id from list_templates first"). Usage is only implied by the verb, matching the calibration's 2 for a comparable mutation tool with no routing guidance.

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