update_profile_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a critical operational trait: authentication is not satisfied by start_login and depends on a server-side PROOF_API_KEY that requires a restart. 'Create or update' also signals upsert behavior, although it does not detail overwrite semantics or response format.

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 highly compact: one front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a necessary access warning. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential operational context: authentication requirements, retry behavior, and clear scoping by profile, channel, and message type. It could go further by describing return values or explicitly contrasting with update_template, but the schema covers parameter semantics and the access note addresses a major real-world failure mode.

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 parameter descriptions already document body placeholders, channel enum choices, and email-only fields. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, keeping this at the baseline of 3.

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 states a clear verb phrase, 'Create or update', and a precise resource: a custom template for a specific profile, channel, and message type. This scoping distinguishes it from generic template tools like update_template without needing to name them.

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 opening sentence makes the tool's usage context obvious: use it when creating or updating profile-scoped templates. The ACCESS note adds a clear prerequisite—requires a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY must be set before server start, and the tool must be called again afterward—and explicitly warns that start_login does not unlock this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it misses a 5.

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