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

The annotations already disclose the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the description need not restate that. It adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the annotations — nothing about required permissions, what happens to omitted body fields, or the effect of changing triggerType.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action followed by a terse parameter list. Nothing is wasted, though the parameter shorthand is dense at the cost of explanation.

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?

It is a mutation tool with a nested object body and an output schema (so return values need not be described). The description covers the basic parameter mapping but omits usage guidance and deeper field semantics, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it clarifies that 'id' is a template uuid and enumerates the body fields (title/description/triggerType/linkedScheduleStopId). However, it gives no semantics for the triggerType enum values or what linkedScheduleStopId references, leaving key meaning unstated.

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 clear specific verb+resource ('Update an info card') and identifies the template scope via 'id (template uuid)'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling update_program_info_card, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives among the many related siblings (update_program_info_card, add/delete_template_info_card, reorder_template_info_cards). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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