update_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The PATCH notation hints at partial-update semantics (only supplied fields change), which is genuine value, but nothing is said about side effects, whether changes affect a draft vs. published state, required permissions, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler words; the verb and endpoint appear immediately. However, the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification — the same sentence could have carried far more behavioral and parameter context without added length.

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 mutating tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 11% schema coverage, this description is radically insufficient. An agent cannot tell what the editable fields mean, whether updating affects published templates, or how this differs from publish_template and duplicate_template in practice.

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 11% — only 'id' is documented in the schema, leaving 8 parameters (from, html, name, text, alias, subject, reply_to, variables) completely unexplained. The tool description does nothing to compensate: it mentions no parameters, their meanings, or constraints.

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 names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a template') and reinforces it with the PATCH /templates/:id endpoint, which also signals partial-update semantics. This is enough to tell it apart from siblings like create_template, get_template, duplicate_template, publish_template, and delete_template, though it does not explicitly contrast with publish_template or duplicate_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?

No guidance is given on when to update a template versus duplicate it, publish it, or create a new one. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that the template must already exist), no conditions that make updating preferable, and no exclusions.

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