hires_update_email_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the important patch-like behavior: 'Only provided fields are overwritten; omitted fields keep their current values.' It also clarifies placeholder handling, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not discuss authentication, errors, or side effects, but for a simple update this is acceptable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 low-complexity update tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the key partial-update semantics and placeholder guidance. It could mention response behavior, but that is not mandatory given the lack of an output schema.

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?

The schema covers all four parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new per-parameter detail beyond the placeholder workflow, which is already reflected in the schema's field 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Update an existing email template.' It explicitly states 'existing' to distinguish from creation, and the operation is clearly different from list/get/delete siblings.

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 states the partial-update behavior and says 'To add placeholders, use the same workflow as creation,' which guides the user toward the creation workflow for that task. It could be more explicit about using create_email_template for new templates, but the update-vs-create distinction is clear.

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