Update a template

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is non-destructive (`destructiveHint: false`) and idempotent (`idempotentHint: true`). The description adds context about what can be updated (metadata or published version), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits or side effects beyond the annotations. The description adds marginal value over the annotations.

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 very concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides specific guidance for the key parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the critical parameter (`published_version`) and leaves the rest to the schema. The annotations cover safety. The description is mostly complete but could mention that `extra` allows additional API parameters (though the schema does). Overall, sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning by explaining that setting `published_version` to a version ID publishes a new version, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify the `description` parameter or the `extra` parameter usage, leaving gaps. The description partially compensates for the schema coverage.

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's purpose: updating a template's metadata or published version. It uses specific verbs ('Update') and resources ('template'), and distinguishes the action from sibling tools like `lob_templates_create` or `lob_templates_delete`. The mention of `published_version` and version ID format adds precision.

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 clear guidance on when to use: to update metadata or published version, and specifically how to publish a new version. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., using `lob_template_versions_update` for version-specific updates). The guidance is good but lacks exclusions.

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