Replaces a template's name, subject, and HTML or plain-text bodies by UUID to update stored email content in EuroMail.
Replace a template's name, subject and bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Template UUID | |
| name | Yes | Template name | |
| subject | Yes | Subject template | |
| html_body | No | HTML body template | |
| preheader | No | Inbox preview text | |
| text_body | No | Plain text body template |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Replace' but the schema shows html_body, text_body and preheader as optional, leaving unclear whether omitted fields are cleared, preserved, or rejected — a critical behavioral detail for a destructive-feeling mutation. No mention of permissions, reversibility, or side effects.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, so length is not the problem — missing content is.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is underspecified: replacement semantics, required-field behavior, and error/validation expectations are all absent. The agent cannot tell what a successful call changes or guarantees.
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 each of the 6 parameters is documented in the schema itself, justifying the baseline 3. The description adds no format, constraint, or requiredness detail beyond restating field names, and it silently drops 'preheader' and the required 'id'.
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 verb 'Replace' plus the resource 'template' is specific, and the named fields (name, subject, bodies) map to the schema. It is clearly distinguishable from create_template/get_template/delete_template by name and description, but it omits 'preheader' and leaves ambiguity about whether 'Replace' means a full overwrite or a partial update.
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 statement of when to use this instead of create_template or get_template, no prerequisites (must the template exist? what permissions?), and no note that id is required. The agent must infer everything from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.