update_templateModify an existing email template by ID, updating only the fields you provide while omitted fields keep their current values.
Change a template. Fields left out keep their current value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The template ID (tmpl_…). | |
| name | No | ||
| variables | No | The variable names it uses, for reference. | |
| html_template | No | ||
| text_template | No | ||
| subject_template | No | Subject, with {{ variable }} placeholders. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description usefully adds that this is a partial/PATCH-style update where omitted fields retain current values. However, it does not say what 'destructive' actually means here (existing subject/HTML/text content being overwritten, effect on in-flight sends) or whether variables must match placeholders.
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?
Two short sentences, verb-first, with the most decision-relevant fact (partial update) up front. No filler, though it is under-specified rather than over-long.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description covers partial-update semantics but omits overwrite consequences, permission requirements, and interaction between variables and template placeholders. Adequate minimum, clear gaps remain.
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 coverage is 50%, with name, html_template and text_template undocumented in both schema and description. The description compensates partly by explaining that all non-id parameters are optional and leave values untouched when omitted, which clarifies mutability semantics for the six parameters.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Change a template'), which is distinguishable from create_template, get_template and delete_template in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring from the name.
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 on when to use this versus create_template or get_template, and no prerequisite or permission context. The only usage-adjacent statement is the patch semantics of omitted fields, which is behavioral rather than routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.