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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, and idempotent=true, so safety posture is covered. The description usefully adds that updates are partial (null fields skipped), but for a destructive mutation it says nothing about what a 'replace' actually overwrites, whether omitted fields are cleared, or permission requirements.

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 tight sentences with the mutation and the lookup keys front-loaded, and the partial-update rule stated plainly. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence could have been used for higher-value parameter guidance instead.

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 5-parameter destructive mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: the key payload object seliee_templates is never described, and no return/confirmation behavior is given. An agent could call it, but not confidently about what to pass.

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 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies that template_id and template_uuid are alternative lookup keys; the payload parameter seliee_templates and the title/language fields are left entirely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb (replace fields) and resource (seliee_template), plus the two lookup keys, so the agent knows exactly what it mutates. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings such as edit_template_key or replace_template_text, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

"Only non-null fields are updated" gives useful partial-update semantics, implying callers pass just the fields they want changed. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over edit_template_key, replace_template_text, or create_template, and no prerequisites or identifier requirements (id vs uuid) are stated.

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