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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a bounded mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the update is partial or full replacement (i.e., whether omitted fields are cleared), what permissions are required, or what the response contains.

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?

It is a single five-word fragment, so there is no verbosity problem, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. No information is front-loaded because no information exists.

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?

A mutation tool with five parameters, a nested object, zero schema coverage and no output schema requires the description to carry substantial weight. It conveys nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% for five parameters, including a nested free-form payloadDefaults object, and the description supplies no information about any of them. Nothing tells the agent what name, designId, description or payloadDefaults accept or how they interact with the required id.

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 "Change a QR template" is essentially a paraphrase of the title "Update template" — it restates the same verb+resource without saying what about the template changes. It does distinguish the mutation from templates_get/list/create/delete by implying modification, but adds no specificity beyond the name.

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, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as templates_create or templates_delete. An agent must infer the use case entirely from the verb.

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