Update Command Template

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a non-destructive mutation. The description adds the prerequisite that the template must exist, but it does not clarify whether updates replace or merge existing commands and validation rules, nor any permission requirements. This is adequate given annotation coverage but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by scope and prerequisite. There is no redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

With 7 parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering the operation type, the description covers the essential purpose and existence prerequisite. It omits nuances like whether omitted fields reset to defaults or how commands are merged, but given the schema and output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 the schema documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond referencing 'commands and validation rules' and clarifying the project/global scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action: 'Update an existing command template in Itential Platform.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like create_command_template and describe_command_template by focusing on updates to existing templates.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when updating an existing command template, with the prerequisite that it must exist in the specified project or global space. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, missing the top tier.

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