emails_update_template

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the update is partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations, but no extra transparency beyond them.

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 extremely brief (three words), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not earn its place as it merely restates the tool name and adds no informational value. A good description should provide more substance while staying efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, enum, no output schema), a one-line description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain update semantics, required fields, or any operational details. The agent would have to rely entirely on the schema and hope for clarity, which is lacking.

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 13%, leaving most parameters undocumented. The description does not explain any parameter meanings or provide context for the required fields (templateId, updatedBy, dnd, html, editorType). With such low coverage, the description fails to compensate, offering zero parameter clarification.

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 states the verb 'update' and the resource 'template', making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like emails_create_template or emails_delete_template; the differentiation relies on the tool name itself rather than the description.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'when a template already exists' or contrast with create/delete/fetch operations. The description is a bare statement with no contextual usage direction.

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