update_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Update' clearly signals a mutation, and 'existing' indicates the target must already exist. However, it does not clarify whether both fields can be updated simultaneously, what happens to unspecified fields, or permission requirements, which are relevant for a write operation.

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 of seven words, with no redundant information or filler. Every word 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 simple tool with complete schema and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the ambiguity of 'or'—it might imply exclusive choice, while the schema allows both fields to be updated together. This prevents a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'New HTML content'). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only clarifying that these are for an existing template and that name or HTML are the updatable fields. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy coverage.

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 'Update an existing template's name or HTML' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it modifies an existing template's fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_template, get_template, and delete_template.

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 clearly implies when to use it: to modify a template's name or HTML. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the verb and resource make the context obvious, and no misleading guidance is present.

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