Update email template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: omitted fields retain their values, i.e. this is a merge/patch rather than an overwrite. It does not explain what setting 'default' true does to other templates, nor the non-idempotent flag's implications.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation-and-merge behavior. The second sentence largely re-names parameters already visible in the schema, so it is slightly redundant, but it costs little and reinforces scope.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the missing merge semantics and field scope. Gaps remain around the 'default' flag's side effects on other templates and error/validation behavior, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is absent.

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 75%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning (e.g. html placeholders, bcc_email, sender_email). The description's field list roughly maps onto the optional parameters and adds the 'omitted = unchanged' semantics, but it introduces no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Changes a tracking email template') and enumerates the editable fields, which separates it from sibling mutations like create_email_template and delete_email_template. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is by implication rather than routing.

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?

'fields you leave out keep their values' implies this is partial-update-only for an existing template (template_id required, sourced from list_email_templates per the schema). But there is no explicit when-to-use versus create_email_template or delete_email_template, and no stated prerequisites or permissions.

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