update_template

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key consequence: 'Template is resubmitted for review.' However, it doesn't explain what this means for the template's active status during review or whether the update is partial or full replacement. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word earns its place. It states the action, the constraint, and the consequence without redundancy.

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 relatively simple update tool, the description covers the core action and consequence (resubmission for review). However, with no output schema, it omits any mention of return values, prerequisites (e.g., template must exist), and the exact semantics of the update (e.g., whether the components array replaces the entire set). This leaves noticeable gaps for an agent.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating that only components and category are updatable, which clarifies that template_id is immutable and that these are the only accepted changes. This is a meaningful addition beyond the schema.

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 the verb and resource: 'Update an existing WhatsApp message template.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the updatable fields ('Only components and category can be updated'), making it unambiguous what this tool does versus create/list/delete.

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 when to use this tool by its name and the constraint on updatable fields, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't say 'for other fields, delete and recreate the template.' The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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