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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds an authorization constraint (only the author's own templates are mutable). However, it says nothing about partial-update behaviour - whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared - which matters for a mutation tool whose annotation claims idempotency.

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, zero filler, with the use condition front-loaded ahead of the restriction. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the mutation/safety profile. But for a 6-parameter update with 0% schema coverage, the description omits the editable field list and the partial-vs-full update semantics an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% across six parameters, so the schema contributes no per-parameter meaning and the description must compensate. The description names no parameter at all, leaving name, locale, category, description and documentJson - plus the nested documentJson object - undocumented in both places.

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 ('changing') and resource ('the author's saved template'), and the title 'Edit a personal template' narrows it to the owner's own templates, distinguishing it from create_template, delete_template and list_templates. It stops short of naming which fields are editable, so it is clear but not maximally specific.

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 opening clause gives an explicit use condition ('Use when changing the author's saved template'), and the second sentence supplies a concrete exclusion: system templates and other users' templates cannot be edited. No sibling alternative is named for the excluded cases (e.g. copy the template), so routing is clear but not complete.

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