Update Template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only supplied fields change ("All fields are optional") and that published status is preserved, but it says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, whether updates are reversible, or what a failed or partial update looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the operation and the key behavioral constraint front-loaded. Nothing is padded or buried.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but not wrong: it conveys the mutation semantics and the published-status exclusion. The remaining gap is that an agent gets no signal about return behavior, error conditions, or prerequisites.

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 every property (id, from, html, name, text, alias, editor, subject, reply_to) is already documented with format and limits. The description's "All fields are optional" adds the patch semantics intent, but nothing beyond that — correct baseline given 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 (update) and resource (existing template), and adds a scope constraint (published status untouched). It is distinguishable from siblings like update-email or update-domain by the resource noun, though the description does not explicitly contrast with sibling template tools.

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?

"Does not change published status" establishes a clear boundary condition that steers an agent away from this tool for publishing changes. However, it does not name publish-template as the alternative, nor does it say when to prefer this over get-template then recreate.

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