Update template

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: partial-update semantics and the downstream effect that live campaigns and workflows will pick up the change on their next send. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Bold-labeled sections (Purpose / Not for / Returns / Use when / Note) are front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information with no filler. The formatting is slightly heavier than necessary for the amount of content, but every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates only with a one-line 'Returns: The updated template.' The behavioral/downstream-impact side is well covered, but with nine parameters at 0% schema coverage an agent still lacks the semantics needed to populate the update payload correctly.

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 0% and nine parameters are otherwise undocumented, so the description carries the burden of explaining them — but it only refers generically to 'fields' without naming or describing any of id, body, from, name, type, replyTo, subject, fromName, or description. Only the enum on 'type' is self-documenting via 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change fields on an existing template') and adds the partial-update semantics ('Only the fields supplied are modified'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by naming plunk_duplicate_template as the tool for the variant-preserving case.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Not for' clause with the correct alternative ('duplicate it first with plunk_duplicate_template, then edit the copy') and a 'Use when' clause describing the in-place editing scenario. The decision boundary between updating and duplicating is fully spelled out.

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