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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the write profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: edits land on the draft and the published version stays intact until publish_template is called. It does not explain what happens on a version conflict (expectedVersion) or whether metadata is replaced wholesale, which for a destructive-marked tool is a real omission.

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 with the draft-vs-published constraint front-loaded; nothing is padded or redundant. Minor deduction only because "informations" is a vague placeholder where a concrete scope would fit at no extra length cost.

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?

The tool takes a deep nested metadata object with no field documentation, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, so the description carries a heavy burden and only addresses the draft/publish boundary. It never clarifies replace-vs-merge semantics for metadata or how expectedVersion failures surface, both of which determine whether a call succeeds safely.

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% — only the nested sourceWebsiteUrl field carries any description, and the three required top-level parameters (templateId, expectedVersion, metadata) are completely unannotated. The description spends none of its text on parameters, so the critical optimistic-locking role of expectedVersion and the full-replacement implications of metadata (required name/category/categoryId, additionalProperties=false) are nowhere explained.

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 names a specific verb ("Modifier") and a specific resource ("informations du brouillon de modèle"), and it clearly scopes the target as the draft rather than the published template. That scope distinction alone separates it from publish_template and archive_template in the sibling list. It stops short of naming which metadata fields are editable, but that is appropriately delegated to the schema.

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?

It implicitly tells the agent when this applies — editing draft metadata, with publication deferred to publish_template — which is more than most sibling tools offer. However, it gives no explicit routing guidance against near-neighbors such as create_template_draft, open_template_draft, record_template_components, or update_asset_metadata, and no prerequisites are stated.

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