tenki_update_template

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: updates are partial and selective, and clear_tags has a wholesale removal effect. This goes beyond what the annotations and schema alone convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the single most important behavioral caveat. No filler or repetition of schema details. Every clause 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 complex tool with 12 parameters, the description is brief but sufficient because the schema carries full parameter documentation. Partial-update semantics and the clear_tags edge case are the main non-obvious behaviors, and both are covered. The absence of an output schema is a minor gap, but an update tool of this type typically returns a standard status object.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds value by clarifying that the set of provided fields is a replacement set (partial update), and by explaining that clear_tags 'remove[s] all tags' rather than merely toggling. This is subtle meaning beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 opens with 'Update mutable fields on a template', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tenki_create_template, tenki_get_template, and tenki_delete_template. Even without reading the schema, an agent knows exactly what this tool operates on.

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 clear partial-update semantics: 'Only the fields you provide are changed', which is a crucial usage rule. It also flags the special clear_tags behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool (e.g., for volume or SSH key updates), though sibling names make that obvious.

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