update_template

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose non-obvious mutation semantics: upsert_slots replaces entries with the same id, delete_slots only removes top-level slots, and null in layout_set removes a key. It omits everything else that matters for a mutation with no readOnly/destructive hints — permission requirements, whether untouched fields are preserved, and reversibility.

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?

Front-loaded with the overall action, then the mode choice, then per-parameter semantics — a sensible information order. Dense with almost no filler; the only slack is that `template_id`, the sole required parameter, is never mentioned.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the hard part (partial-edit semantics) well. The remaining gaps — the undocumented name/mapping/description fields and the absence of any safety or failure-mode note — are real but secondary.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partly does: it explains layout, upsert_slots, delete_slots, and layout_set thoroughly. It says nothing about `mapping`, `name`, or `description`, which are three of the eight parameters and remain completely undefined anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Change a template") and immediately decomposes the two ways to change it (full `layout` replacement vs. in-place edits). It is clearly distinguishable from create_template/delete_template by name, but it never explicitly names or rules out siblings such as duplicate_template or update_part, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives real selection guidance between the two mutually exclusive modes: send a whole new `layout` OR edit in place via upsert_slots/delete_slots/layout_set. That resolves the main ambiguity an agent faces. It does not say when to prefer update_template over duplicate_template, or that validate_layout should be run first, so no sibling-level exclusions.

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