update_packing_slip_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining whether updates are partial or full, permissions required, side effects, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 of six words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with zero redundancy.

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 update tool with fully documented schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks behavioral context such as whether missing fields are left unchanged, return value, or required permissions. It does not compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema.

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 descriptive parameter names and descriptions (id, body, name, subject). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('packing slip template'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from creation/deletion. It aligns with the sibling tools create_packing_slip_template and delete_packing_slip_template, making its role unambiguous.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing template but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It falls short of clearly differentiating from sibling tools like get_packing_slip_templates or create_packing_slip_template.

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