template_update

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not readOnly, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it modifies properties of an existing template, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on linked objects) or authorization requirements. The extra detail over annotations is minimal.

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: two short sentences front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by additional usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, simple update operation, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, which fields can be changed, and partial update pattern. It could mention that the template must already exist, but this is a minor gap.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying partial update semantics ('Only specify the fields you want to change'), which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('template in Zabbix'), and lists the specific modifiable properties (name, description). It distinguishes from sibling tools like template_create, template_delete, and template_get.

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 for updating existing templates and notes to 'only specify fields you want to change', but it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., template_create for new templates) or mention prerequisites like template existence.

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