update-template

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

The description states 'Update an existing email template,' which aligns with the destructiveHint: true annotation indicating a mutation. However, it adds minimal context beyond annotations—no details on permissions needed, whether updates are reversible, or what happens to unspecified fields. With annotations covering the destructive nature, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 6 parameters), annotations cover the destructive aspect, but no output schema exists. The description is minimal—it states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or return values. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is correct when 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 existing email template' clearly states the action (update) and resource (email template). It distinguishes from siblings like create-template (create) and delete-template (delete), but doesn't specify what aspects can be updated beyond what the schema shows.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing template), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar operations like creating a new template versus updating an existing one.

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