update_template_description

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful convention that request fields go in a body object and that JSON-encoded string fields must stay strings, but it does not disclose that the existing description is overwritten or what happens on invalid input. No direct contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the payload convention. The opening restates the tool name verbatim, which is minor waste, but nothing else is padded.

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 nested-body mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the mechanics of payload placement but omits what the body must contain, overwrite semantics, and error behavior. Adequate to attempt a call, not complete enough to call it safely without inspecting the schema.

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 0%, so all three parameters rely on the description. The endpoint path maps project_id and template_id to their positions and 'Supply API fields in body' explains the nested body wrapper, which is real added meaning. However, it never says the body must contain the 'description' key or what format that string should be in.

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 names a specific verb and resource (update a template's description), and the HTTP path PUT /project/{project_id}/templates/{template_id}/description reinforces exactly which resource field is being changed. It is distinguishable from sibling update_template (full template update) by the title alone, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool instead of update_template, nor any prerequisite (e.g. permission requirements, whether the template must exist). The endpoint path only implies that a project-scoped template ID is needed.

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