Update Template

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the html field replaces the whole body rather than appending or patching. However, it omits critical partial-update semantics — whether omitted fields (name or html) are left unchanged or reset — which matters greatly for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation.

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 tightly scoped sentence with both supported operations front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse given the tool's mutation semantics, but every word earns its place.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and an undocumented 'name' parameter, the description should disclose partial-update behavior and any side effects. It covers only the two operations, leaving an agent unable to predict what happens to unspecified fields.

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 67%, with 'name' carrying no schema description at all; the description compensates partially by tying 'Rename' to the name parameter. The 'replaces the whole body HTML' phrasing reinforces the html schema description, but nothing explains that omitted parameters leave existing values untouched.

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 specific verb ('Rename', 'replace') and resource ('email template', 'HTML'), making the two supported mutations explicit. It is distinguishable from create-template and get-template, but it does not distinguish itself from a generic update by clarifying that only name and html are updatable.

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 mention of alternatives (e.g. get-template to read first), and no prerequisites such as required permissions or template ownership. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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