update_template

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

Discloses partial update and clearing of html/text via null, which is helpful beyond schema. However, no annotations exist, and description omits details like required permissions, idempotency, error states, or whether clearing other fields (name, slug, etc.) is possible.

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 key behavior and special case. No fluff; efficient and scannable.

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 7 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core update behavior and null handling. Could benefit from mentioning response expectations or immutable fields, but overall adequate for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 57% (4/7 params have descriptions). Description adds value by explaining partial update and null handling for html/text, but does not elaborate on name, slug, or subject beyond minimal schema info. Baseline 3 adjusted slightly due to partial compensation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates a saved template by id or slug, specifies partial update behavior, and highlights null clearing for html and text. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_template, delete_template, and get_template.

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?

Description implies usage context for updating templates but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., create_template) or when not to use (e.g., read-only operations). No exclusion criteria provided.

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