put--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name-versions-version_nam

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens when 'active' is set (e.g., deactivating other versions), if changes are reversible, or any rate limits/constraints. The description adds almost no value beyond the implied mutation.

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 ('Update a version') but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks the front-loaded specificity needed for clarity. A single sentence could be appropriate if it contained more substance, but here conciseness comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 57% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or the significance of updating a version (e.g., impact on email delivery). For this complexity level, the description provides inadequate context for effective use.

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 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions), but the description adds zero parameter information. It doesn't explain the purpose of domain_name, template_name, or version_name (the required identifiers), nor does it clarify relationships between parameters like 'template' content versus 'headers'. With moderate schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for gaps.

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 a version' is a tautology that restates the tool name (which contains 'put' and 'version_nam'), providing no meaningful elaboration. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (template version content, metadata, or status) or what 'update' entails in this context, making it only slightly better than a single-word description.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing template/version), differentiate from sibling tools like 'put--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name' or 'post--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name-versions', or indicate appropriate contexts for version updates versus creation.

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