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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool updates a template but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacement, whether fields can be cleared, whether any destructive consequences occur, permission requirements, or what happens to existing data.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the updateable fields without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse for an agent to invoke the tool safely. It does not mention the required id, partial-update behavior, or any side effects, and the presence of sibling tools like template_archive and template_upload does not compensate for this missing context.

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 description names three of the four schema properties (name, content, and field definitions corresponding to fields), which adds some meaning beyond the bare property names. However, it omits the required id parameter entirely and does not explain value constraints such as the id pattern, minLength, or the completedBy enum, leaving significant gaps given 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Update') and resource ('existing template'), and enumerates the specific attributes that can be changed: name, content, or field definitions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like template_create, template_get, and template_archive without requiring any further investigation.

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 'existing template' implies this tool is for modifying an already-created template rather than creating or listing one. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternative tools for different scenarios, leaving room for ambiguity.

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