Email Templates Update

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational context (PUT endpoint, write_email_templates scope, API version 2025-03), but leaves a real ambiguity: with PUT semantics and only templateID required, it doesn't say whether omitted subject/template_html are preserved or cleared.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action and affected fields, followed by endpoint, scope, and API version — every line carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess. Slightly terse at the cost of the missing replacement-semantics detail.

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 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, permission, and version. The main omission is whether the update is a full replace or a partial merge, which matters for a PUT-style call.

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% and nested i18n objects are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of subject and HTML mirrors the schema rather than adding new meaning, and it says nothing about additional_fields or the merge behavior of extra body fields.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Update an email template's subject and HTML") and even identifies the exact fields being modified. It is clearly distinct from the email_templates_list and email_templates_get siblings via the update verb, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it should call this when modifying an existing template, but there is no statement of prerequisites (e.g., fetch the template first via get/list to obtain templateID), no when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives. The required-scope line gives a permissive condition but not a selection rule.

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