Update template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly indicates mutation and mentions validation, but it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, permissions, or side effects beyond the warning about losing fields.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core actions and then add important caveats. No wasted words, and every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 4 parameters including a nested object, the description covers key actions and validation but omits what the tool returns (e.g., updated template object) and error conditions. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds context by linking parameters to actions (rename, change description, replace JSON). However, for the templateId and payload parameters, the schema already provides descriptions, and the main text adds little beyond what is stated.

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: renaming, changing description, and replacing project JSON. The verb 'update' combined with the specific resources (template, description, JSON) distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_template, delete_template, and duplicate_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 provides explicit guidance to fetch the current template first to avoid data loss, and notes that replacement JSON is validated before saving. It implies a precondition but does not contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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