channels_whatsapp_template_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reiterates idempotency and 'modifies in place,' adding minimal value beyond annotations. The PUT method and update verb are clear.

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 concise with essential information front-loaded (purpose, method). Some repetition exists ('Update WhatsApp Template' appears twice), but overall it is efficiently structured.

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 complexity of the nested body object and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits important context like update semantics (partial vs full replacement), error handling, and field constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 50%, and the tool description does not elaborate on the two parameters (id and body). It fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions or clarify which body fields are updatable, leaving the agent without additional guidance.

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 tool updates a WhatsApp template by ID and is idempotent. The resource and action are unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or delete, though no explicit differentiation is made.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new template, updating other entities). It lacks context on prerequisites like the template existing or required permissions.

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