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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description only adds the tenant-scoping constraint. It says nothing about partial-update semantics (whether null body fields leave values unchanged), whether omitted fields are wiped, or any confirmation/reversibility behavior — important for a destructive mutation with a nested optional-fields body.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency given the undocumented nested body.

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 destructive mutation with a nested 5-field body, no output schema, and 0% schema documentation cannot be safely called from this description; the agent cannot know what each field does or how null values are treated.

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%, and the nested TemplateUpdateBody exposes five undocumented fields (type, alias, content, email_num, allow_smoothing) with no explanation anywhere. The description adds zero meaning about template_id or any body field, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Update a writing template') and adds ownership scope ('belonging to your team'), which distinguishes it from list_templates/create_template/delete_template by name alone. It stops just short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this versus create_template or delete_template, nor prerequisites such as needing an existing template_id or the required team permissions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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