vtex_update_email_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise at four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the update operation entails, what data can be modified, how to structure the template object, or what to expect in return. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic inference.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (templateId and template) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what templateId refers to, the structure of template data, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an email template' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('email template'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like vtex_update_document or vtex_update_product, which follow the same pattern for different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing template ID), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like vtex_create_email_template or vtex_get_email_template. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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