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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and potentially destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds a meaningful behavioral boundary: only the author's own templates are editable. It does not go further to explain update semantics (e.g., whether provided fields replace the whole template), but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the key limitation. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant restating of the title or schema.

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 tool with six parameters, a nested object, and a destructive annotation, the description is thin: it omits any information about what fields mean, whether partial updates are allowed, and what happens to omitted fields. The output schema and annotations fill some gaps, but the lack of parameter guidance leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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 bears the responsibility for explaining parameters, but it does not mention templateId, name, locale, category, description, or documentJson at all. The schema property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no guidance about which fields are editable or how documentJson relates to the template.

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 ('changing') and the resource ('the author's saved template'), and distinguishes it from related sibling tools by explicitly stating what cannot be edited: system templates and other users' templates. This gives an agent a clear match for the update_template operation.

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 states when to use the tool ('when changing the author's saved template') and gives an important exclusion: system templates and other users' templates cannot be edited. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for those excluded cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route around them.

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