update_record_template_description

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds moderate value by noting 'pass empty string to clear' for the description parameter. However, it omits other behavioral traits like error handling or auth requirements.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff, but could be expanded to include usage guidance or parameter tips without losing conciseness.

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 simple update tool with full schema descriptions and annotations, the description is adequate but lacks usage context to differentiate from siblings. No output schema exists, so return value expectations are unaddressed.

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 covers all 4 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra parameter insight beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'Set or update' and the resource 'description text of a record template', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'rename_record_template' and 'set_record_template_cell'.

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 provides no context on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools like 'set_record_template_cell'.

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