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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the target template must already exist and that only one key is touched, but it omits what happens when the key is absent (create vs error), whether the prior value is overwritten irrecoverably, and any auth/prerequisite context.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the identifier clause parenthesized at the end. Minor density from backticked field names, but nothing is padded.

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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with zero parameter descriptions and no output schema, an agent still can't tell whether a missing key is created, whether the call fails when neither id nor uuid is supplied, or what the response looks like. The definition is incomplete relative to the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It does clarify that `template_id` and `template_uuid` are alternative identifiers for the same template, but `seliee_template_key` and `seliee_template_value` are explained only by restating their names — no format, length, or overwrite semantics.

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 ("Set") and a precise resource (a single key inside a template's `seliee_templates` map), and the word "single" implicitly contrasts it with whole-template editing. It does not explicitly name siblings like `edit_template`, `replace_template_text`, or `update_*_keys`, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 a narrow, targeted edit (one key in one existing template), which suggests when to prefer it over a full template edit, but it never states when to use it, when not to, or which alternatives exist. All routing decisions are left to the agent.

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