update_templateRename an existing email template by providing its template ID and the new name.
Update the name of an existing template
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New name for the template | |
| template_id | Yes | ID of the template to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that—it does not mention side effects, error conditions (e.g., missing template), permissions, or any other runtime behavior.
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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the key information and does not waste tokens.
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?
The tool is simple (2 required parameters, no nested objects), and the schema plus annotations cover the operation's safety and idempotency profile. However, the description does not address return values or error behavior and lacks usage alternatives, so it is not fully complete—though it is adequate for the low complexity.
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?
Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema with clear descriptions ('New name for the template', 'ID of the template to update'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'Update the name' aligns with the name parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 a specific action ('Update'), a precise resource ('existing template'), and the exact property being changed ('name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_template_version or create_template, which handle different resources or operations.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create_template, delete_template, or update_template_version. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or use-case contexts, leaving the agent to infer solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.