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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully adds a connector-level limitation (attachment operations fail; use the web app), but it does not clarify the most important behavioral question for an update tool: whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared, nor whether changes are reversible.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the connector limitation; nothing is buried. Minor waste in the redundant 'Update a Template - Update an existing email template' opening.

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 rich schema descriptions, an output schema, and annotations covering the destructive profile, the description does not need to restate parameters or return values. Only the partial-update semantics for a 9-parameter mutation are left unaddressed, which is a modest gap.

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 100% and each of the nine parameters carries a detailed description (including the folder empty-string behavior and the workspace default). The description adds only the attachments restriction, which the schema already states verbatim, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 an existing email template'), which clearly separates it from create_template, get_template, and archive_template. The first clause merely restates the title, and no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and the required 'id'; there is no statement of prerequisites, when to prefer create_template vs. this tool, or what happens on partial input. The one concrete guideline given is a constraint — attachments cannot be sent through this connector and must go through the web app.

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