update_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait—partial update semantics—which is valuable. However, it fails to mention other relevant behaviors such as error handling for nonexistent templates, permission requirements, or atomicity. The disclosure is partial, leaving gaps in the behavioral profile.

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 sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence explains the update behavior concisely. The third sentence about template usage is somewhat tangential but provides helpful context without being overly verbose. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 an output schema present and a 100% parameter schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: it defines the tool's purpose, partial update behavior, and template usage. It does not explicitly state prerequisites like template existence or how to specify the project, but the schema and the 'existing template' phrasing cover those implicitly. The description is adequately complete for this level of complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'command, template text, and sample data' which maps to the command, template, and data parameters, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The partial update semantics adds context but not specific parameter-level clarity.

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 opens with 'Update an existing template in Automation Studio', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_template by emphasizing 'existing' and from update_command_template by referencing templates rather than command 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 usage context: it is for updating existing templates, and it explains the partial update behavior ('Only specified fields will be updated; fields not provided will retain their existing values'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as create_template for new templates.

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