update_template_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It labels the operation as 'advanced mutating operation' and 'directly patch', but does not explain what side effects, permissions, or risks are involved. The lack of detail on behavioral traits (e.g., whether it bypasses validation, irreversible changes) is a significant gap.

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 that conveys the tool's purpose and a usage hint. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, prerequisites for use, or any behavioral details. For a mutation tool, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to any of the 7 parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Updated version name', 'Updated active flag'). No additional context or clarifications are given.

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 it patches an existing template version, with specific verb 'patch' and resource 'template version'. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'create_template_version' by saying 'prefer create_template_version for safer edits', which helps an agent differentiate.

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 explicitly advises preferring 'create_template_version' for safer edits, implying this tool is for advanced/unsafe direct patches. This provides clear usage guidance and an alternative, though it does not elaborate on specific contexts where this tool should be chosen over others.

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