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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuine value beyond them: visibility is "dropped silently" (a silent-data-loss trait an agent must know) and null clears category/country/city/region/routerProfileId. It still doesn't clarify replace-vs-merge semantics for omitted fields, so it isn't fully transparent for a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then dense but informative parameter notes; every clause (id shape, optionality, null=clear, visibility exclusion, alternative tool) carries a distinct fact. The parenthetical is packed tightly, which slightly reduces readability but wastes nothing.

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 no explanation, and the visibility silent-drop and null-clearing semantics are covered. The remaining gap is replace-vs-merge behavior for fields the caller omits, which matters for a tool flagged destructiveHint=true.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden and delivers: id is a uuid, body takes the create fields minus visibility, fields are all optional, and null explicitly clears the geo/category/routerProfileId fields. It weakens slightly by referring to "the create fields" without enumerating them, forcing a cross-reference with create_template.

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+resource ("Update template metadata"), and "metadata" usefully implies the template entity itself rather than its cards/schedule stops, which are covered by sibling update_* tools. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to an alternative: visibility is not accepted here and "change it with set_template_visibility." That is a clear when-not-use rule with a named replacement. It leaves the other update_* siblings unaddressed, so it stops short of full 5-level routing.

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