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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful beyond-annotation context: only passed fields change, and each passed field (e.g. account_ids) fully replaces the stored value rather than merging. It omits permission/auth requirements, but the mutation profile is largely disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most decision-relevant nuance (full-replacement semantics). No filler.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the idempotency/destructive profile, the description is nearly complete. It does not address what happens on an invalid or missing template_id, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies patch-style replacement semantics for list-valued fields like account_ids, which the schema only labels as 'the UUIDs the template targets'. That distinction is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 ('Change') and resource ('a saved post template'), which clearly places it in the update slot among the create/get/list/delete template siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb-resource pair is unambiguous enough for selection.

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 implies usage (it is the update tool) and gives partial-update semantics, but never states when to use this over create_post_template or update_post, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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