Update Template

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: the partial update semantics that preserves unspecified fields. This is valuable context not provided by the readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false annotations. It also explains the purpose of templates. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, the second explains the critical update behavior, and the third provides context. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavioral nuances. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like create_command_template, but overall the description is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying command, template, and data to the update operation and emphasizing that omitted fields retain their existing values, which clarifies parameter behavior beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 template' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from create_template by explicitly saying 'existing' and lists the updateable content (command, template text, sample data), which aligns with the sibling tool set.

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 gives clear usage guidance by explaining partial update behavior: 'Only specified fields will be updated; fields not provided will retain their existing values.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (for patch-like modifications) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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