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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable context: draft-only modification, required scope `templates:manage`, the exact PATCH path, and a warning not to invent other paths. It does not contradict the annotations and gives more operational detail than the structured fields alone.

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 five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, followed by scope, path, and API context. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition or fluff.

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?

With no output schema and a complex 16-parameter nested input, the description should clarify return behavior, partial update semantics, and what 'updating a template' actually changes. It only covers draft-only status and API constraints, leaving critical usage details unspecified for an agent 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 only 31%, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain partial versus full updates, which fields can be changed, how the `structure` object is merged, or the role of image IDs. The agent must rely entirely on the under-covered schema, making this a significant gap.

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 a specific action ('Update a template') and adds the key constraint 'Updates a draft template. Published templates cannot be modified.' This distinguishes it from siblings like createTemplate, deleteTemplate, and publishTemplate without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 says published templates cannot be modified, which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool. It also names the scope and API path. However, it does not mention alternatives such as createTemplate or publishTemplate by name, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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