update_interview_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', which implies modification but reveals nothing about side effects, whether it is a partial or full update, idempotency, or required permissions. The description adds no beyond the tool name's implication.

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 waste, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to convey necessary details and thus does not earn the minimal length. The structure is front-loaded but contains no informational value.

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 tool with a required UUID parameter and a nested object parameter, the description is severely incomplete. There is no mention of what config should contain, what name is for, or what the update does to the template. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks essential context to call this tool 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 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no descriptions for the three parameters (template_id, name, config). The description must compensate but gives zero parameter information. It does not explain what 'name' or 'config' mean, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance for invocation.

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 'Update an interview template' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'update_interview_template' with spaces, making it a tautology. It does not provide any additional specificity about what updating entails or how it differs from related tools like create_interview_template or delete_interview_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for an existing template, nor does it exclude cases where create or delete would be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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