put--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update template' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't describe what gets updated (beyond the schema hinting at description), whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing template data not mentioned, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 just two words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it contains no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, even if more content is needed.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (33%), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the basic verb, provides no behavioral context, offers no parameter guidance, and gives no indication of what happens when the tool is invoked. This leaves critical gaps for an AI agent trying to use this tool correctly.

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 only 33% (1 of 3 parameters has a description). The description 'Update template' adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't explain what 'domain_name' or 'template_name' represent, nor does it clarify the optional 'description' parameter's role in the update operation. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 template' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates an update action on a template resource, it lacks specificity about what aspects of the template are updated or the context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'put--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name-versions-version_nam' which also appears to update template versions.

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. There are multiple sibling tools with similar naming patterns (e.g., 'get--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name', 'post--v3-domain_name-templates', 'put--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name-versions-version_nam'), but the description offers no context about prerequisites, when this specific update operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other template-related operations.

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