update_command_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the update action and the precondition of existence, but does not clarify whether the update replaces all existing commands or merges with new ones, nor does it discuss permissions, reversibility, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 short paragraphs with no superfluous content. The first sentence gives a clear summary, and the second adds relevant detail about commands/validation and the existence precondition. Well-structured and appropriately sized.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and the main precondition, but given the tool's complexity (7 params, mutation behavior) and lack of annotations, it leaves important ambiguities such as whether commands are replaced or appended. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required, but the behavioral ambiguity makes the description only minimally viable.

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 already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning by tying 'new commands and validation rules' to the commands field and 'specified project or global space' to the project field, but it does not go beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Update an existing command template' with a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the scope ('in Itential Platform') and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_command_template by emphasizing 'existing'. The mention of 'new commands and validation rules' clarifies the update's content.

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: it is for updating existing templates, with the prerequisite that 'The template must exist in the specified project or global space.' It also implies when to use (update vs. create) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use. This is better than no guidance but lacks direct exclusions.

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