email_templates_update

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 and falls short. It does not say whether updates are partial or full-replacement, whether the template must already exist, whether auth is required (apiKey/restEndpoint are schema params), or whether changes are reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful 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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but for a nine-parameter mutation endpoint this is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient. It is neither bloated nor informative.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no partial-update semantics should explain more about what changes and what the caller must supply. Given the complexity of a nine-param template update, the description leaves the agent guessing about behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters (body, subject, tags, template_name, etc.). The description adds no format or semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource combination ('Update an existing email template'), which is unambiguous and accurate. It does not differentiate from siblings like email_templates_create or email_templates_info, but the resource is clear enough that a name-plus-description read is sufficient.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as email_templates_create or content_blocks_update. The agent must infer that this is the mutation path for an already-existing template.

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