update_template

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

The description indicates a rename operation, which implies only the title changes and content is unaffected. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions needed, or idempotency details beyond what the annotations already indicate (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true).

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 redundant words or extraneous detail. It is maximally concise while still conveying the core operation.

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?

For a simple rename operation, the description is adequate. However, it lacks context about the template lifecycle, relationship to content updates, or how it differs from other template-related tools, which would help an agent choose confidently among sibling operations.

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 parameter names (collectiveId, templateId, title) are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning or examples. It does not clarify relationships or constraints, leaving the schema to carry all parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action (rename) and the target resource (page template). It is more specific than the generic tool name 'update_template', though it does not elaborate on scope or context.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_template_content', 'create_template', or 'delete_template'. It does not mention that renaming is different from editing content or that other operations exist.

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