updateTemplate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'update', implying mutation. It does not disclose whether updates are partial (only provided fields) or full replacements, what happens if the template ID does not exist, or the response format. No additional operational context is provided beyond the verb.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is efficient and immediately conveys the core action. While it lacks detail, that is a completeness concern rather than a conciseness issue, so it earns a high score for structure.

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?

As a mutation tool with four parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits critical operational details like update semantics (partial vs. full), the need for an existing template, and expected errors/return values, leaving the agent to make assumptions.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (id, body, name, subject). The tool description adds no further semantic meaning, but with full schema coverage, this meets the baseline and adequately guides parameter usage.

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 'update' and the resource 'email template', making it unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like updateTextMessageTemplate by specifying 'email', and from createTemplate/getTemplate/mergeTemplate by indicating modification.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createTemplate or getTemplate. It does not mention that the template must already exist, nor does it differentiate partial versus full update behavior. Usage is only implicit via the verb.

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