Update Template Version

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

Annotations already convey that this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those facts. The description adds only generic context ('content and settings') and does not disclose behavioral nuances such as how setting 'active' affects other versions or what happens to test data. It contradicts no annotations, but also adds little beyond them.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a straightforward update operation. It could be slightly richer, but it does not waste the agent's attention.

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?

With 9 parameters, a rich input schema, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain version-specific behavior, activation semantics, or how this differs from updating a template itself. The available schema and sibling names fill some gaps, but the description alone leaves the agent without clear routing guidance.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description's 'content and settings' is a high-level summary but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema carries the burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Update') and resource ('template version'), which distinguishes it from get/delete/create siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'update_template', which could be confused at the template level. The phrasing is meaningful and not a tautology.

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 implies this tool is used to modify a template version, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like update_template or create_template_version. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues about version-level vs. template-level updates. Usage is inferred from the name and resource phrasing rather than explicitly stated.

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