template_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral nuance that only supplied fields are changed, which prevents accidental clearing of unspecified fields, and clarifies the favorite toggle semantics. It doesn't discuss error handling or return values, but for a simple update operation this provides sufficient transparency.

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?

Two succinct sentences front-load the purpose and then deliver the partial-update behavior and favorite toggle instruction. Every word earns its place, no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 rich input schema and the simplicity of an update operation, the description covers the essential partial-update behavior. However, with no output schema, it doesn't mention what the tool returns (updated object, success message, etc.), leaving a minor gap for agents expecting a specific response.

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 schema already describes all 9 parameters with 100% coverage, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds critical meaning that omitted fields remain unchanged, which is not apparent from the schema alone. This partial-update clarification enhances parameter understanding beyond the raw field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing content template'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling template_create, template_delete, template_list, template_extract, and template_pick operations. It explicitly states the function is for updating, not creating or deleting.

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?

It provides clear context that this tool modifies an existing template and that all fields are optional, implying partial updates. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks the explicit 'when/when-not' guidance that would earn a 5.

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