postgrid_update_template

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. It only names the action and target fields; it does not disclose whether omitted fields are preserved, whether the update is destructive, what the response looks like, or any authentication requirements. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It leads with the action, identifies the resource, and specifies the updatable fields clearly and efficiently.

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 three-parameter update with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around behavioral details such as partial-update semantics and response behavior, which an agent would need for safe invocation.

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%, and the schema already documents id, html, and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'HTML content' and 'description', so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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 states a clear verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('existing template'), and the exact scope of changes ('HTML content or description'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like postgrid_create_template, postgrid_get_template, and postgrid_delete_template.

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 the tool is for modifying an existing template, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over creating a template, nor does it mention prerequisites like the template already existing or what fields are required.

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