update-project-template

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

The annotations already declare this as not read-only, destructive, and open-world, so the description does not need to establish the safety profile. It adds some useful detail, such as templateName being required even for updates and a minimal return note, but it never explains what a destructive update replaces or whether omitted fields are preserved.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then organized into required fields, optional fields, ID discovery, and examples. It is somewhat redundant with the schema's own field descriptions, but the structure and examples earn their 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?

For a 13-parameter, nested-object, destructive update tool with no output schema, the description covers required fields, optional fields, examples, and a basic return note. The critical missing piece is update semantics: it does not say whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, which matters for correctly invoking a destructive operation.

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 13 parameters and the nested body/guide structure. The description mostly restates those field descriptions and enum values; its only real additions are that templateName is required even on update and that isDefault auto-fills new tasks, which is not enough to move clearly beyond the baseline.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing task template in a Dooray project.' The word 'existing' distinguishes it from create-project-template, and the template-list reference connects it to the correct sibling for discovery.

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 a clear context for use, separates required from optional fields, and points to `get-project-template-list` for obtaining template IDs. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer create-project-template or delete-project-template instead, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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