Update EV template

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds minimal behavioral context. The word 'existing' hints that the template must already exist, but it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning its place by clearly stating the core action. However, it is under-specified, but conciseness is about structure, and it performs well on that front.

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 tool has a free-form payload object and no output schema, yet the description provides no details on payload structure, update semantics, or expected behavior. It is far from complete, especially given that nested objects and no schema descriptions place a higher burden on the description to explain usage. This is completely inadequate for an update 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 0%, and the description does not compensate at all. It does not explain what 'payload' should contain or how 'template_id' is used, leaving the agent without any guidance for filling the required parameters. The description adds no value beyond what the parameter names imply.

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 existing EV template' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (EV template), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create. It is not a tautology since it adds context about the target being pre-existing, helping differentiate from the sibling create tool.

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 implies usage when one needs to modify an existing EV template, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. It lacks context about prerequisites (like needing a template_id) or when to prefer update over create/delete, so it only meets the implied usage level.

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