Create a new template or update an existing one by ID while preserving omitted fields from the cached full template; locked built-ins remain protected.
Create a template or update an existing template by id, preserving omitted fields from the cached full template. Changes may affect linked instances. Locked built-ins cannot be overwritten.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| spec | Yes | ||
| table_id | No | Omit to use the active connected table. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: omitted fields are preserved from the cached full template (partial-merge semantics) and changes may propagate to linked instances. It does not say what happens on failure or whether changes are reversible.
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?
Three tight sentences, no waste, front-loaded with the create/update distinction followed by the two highest-risk behaviors (linked-instance propagation, locked built-ins). Every sentence earns its place.
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 a destructive mutation with a nested free-form object and no output schema, the description covers the crucial merge and side-effect semantics. The remaining gap is the shape of spec — an agent still needs external knowledge of template fields — but the risk-bearing behavior is disclosed.
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 only 33% — just table_id is documented, and id and the free-form spec object are bare. The description partially compensates by explaining id's role and that omitted spec fields are retained from the cached template, but it never says what keys spec accepts or what the merge granularity is. Partial compensation, not full.
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 pair and resource: create a template or update one by id. It also names the governing constraints (merge with cached template, locked built-ins). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like library_list, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.
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?
Clearly explains the create-vs-update branch (omit id to create, supply id to update) and gives an explicit exclusion: locked built-ins cannot be overwritten. It does not point to library_list for discovering ids or to any alternative write path, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.