update_ortb_native_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the template must be 'existing', but does not explain whether updates are partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, required permissions, or side effects. No additional behavioral context is provided.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools with similar names), the description is under-specified. It fails to explain update semantics, response behavior, or how it differs from 'update_native_template', leaving the agent with insufficient contextual information.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all 3 parameters, each with descriptions. The description itself does not reference parameters, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies without any added value from the description.

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 'existing OpenRTB native template', making the action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'update_native_template', which could create confusion despite the 'OpenRTB' qualifier.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_native_template' or 'create_ortb_native_template'. It only implies usage by saying 'existing', but doesn't state when to prefer this over other update tools or mention any exclusions.

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