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

The description fully discloses the tool's behavior, including that it is a wholesale replace, that an empty description clears it, and that display_name is required. This aligns with the destructiveHint annotation and leaves no ambiguity about the effects of calling the tool.

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 slightly verbose but each sentence adds crucial information about scope, wholesale semantics, and prerequisites. The structure is logical, and the repeated emphasis on metadata-only and read-first is justified given the tool's destructive potential.

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 description provides comprehensive information about the tool's purpose, behavior, and parameter nuances. While an output schema is mentioned, the description doesn't need to explain return values for an update operation, and the provided details are sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Every parameter in the schema is described with meaningful details: template_id identifies the target, display_name is required and cannot be blank, description is set wholesale and can be cleared. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the wholesale behavior in the parameter descriptions.

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 states the tool updates an api template's display_name and description, specifying it only affects metadata and not the request definition. It distinguishes itself from create_api_template_version and other related tools, and the sibling list reinforces this by including create/delete/get variants.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: for metadata updates only, and it advises reading current values first due to the wholesale replace semantics. It also clarifies what it does NOT do (change request definition), providing clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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