update_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only provided fields are updated, respects read-only/dry-run modes, returns 404 for invalid template_id, and mentions authentication and rate limits. This adds significant context beyond what annotations would provide, though it lacks details on idempotency or side effects on related entities.

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 moderately long but well-structured with an Args and Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose (purpose, constraints, usage, error handling, parameter details). Minor redundancy could be trimmed but overall tight.

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 that an output schema exists and the description covers return fields (id, name, type, active, date_edited), it provides solid context. It also addresses error conditions, authentication, and rate limits. For a template update tool, this is fairly complete, though it could mention whether the operation is atomic or if concurrent updates are safe.

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. It explains each parameter: template_id is a numeric string from list_templates, name is a new display name, html replaces all existing content. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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 states 'Update an existing template's name or HTML content' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from create_template by saying 'Use create_template to create a new template instead of modifying a gallery template', making it clear what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 explicit guidance: 'Only works for user-created templates; gallery and base templates cannot be modified', along with an alternative tool (create_template). It also mentions authentication and rate limits ('Authenticated via API key. Max 10 concurrent requests'), offering clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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