zadig_build_template_update

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. It mentions dry_run and confirm, which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens when dry_run is true versus when confirm is required. It also repeats a schema default and adds 'requires confirm=true', which conflicts with the schema's confirm default of false.

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 a single sentence with no filler words, front-loading the core action. It earns its place by giving the most essential safety-related defaults, though the phrase 'store template' is slightly awkward and could have been phrased more clearly.

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 five parameters including a nested template object, no annotations, and many sibling tools with similar update/apply/diff operations, this description is not complete enough. It does not explain how to identify the target template, what dry_run actually does, what confirm controls, or when to use this tool instead of related build-template tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations. It provides some meaning for dry_run and confirm by stating defaults and requirements, but it completely ignores the critical template, template_id, and template_name parameters that determine which build template is being updated.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('build template'), clearly indicating this tool modifies an existing build template. However, the phrase 'store template' is grammatically awkward and the description does not differentiate this tool from closely related siblings such as zadig_build_template_apply or zadig_build_template_create.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zadig_build_template_apply, zadig_build_template_create, or zadig_build_template_diff. The dry_run and confirm defaults imply a two-step apply workflow, but there is no statement about when an agent should invoke this tool and when it should use a sibling.

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