update_template

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

The description notes that the tool 'Creates a new draft version,' which is valuable behavioral info beyond annotations. However, this conflicts with the idempotentHint=true annotation, as creating a new draft each call is not idempotent. The openWorldHint=true is not explained.

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 that efficiently conveys the action, target, and side-effect. Every word earns its place with no 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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential purpose and effect but lacks details on the required 'id', the fate of existing drafts, or constraints. Sibling tools suggest a template lifecycle, but the description does not connect to it.

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?

With only 20% schema coverage, the description compensates somewhat by listing 'name, subject, or body' as updatable fields. However, it does not clarify that 'body' corresponds to both 'html' and 'text' parameters, nor does it explain the difference between them. Meaning is added but not exhaustive.

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 the action 'Update' and the resource 'template', and specifies the fields (name, subject, body) that can be updated. It clearly communicates the core purpose but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_template or publish_template.

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 usage for modifying template content but provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that publish_template should be used to publish a draft, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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