Update an existing template's body, subject, category, or active status by ID to keep reusable messages accurate.
Update a template's content, subject, or category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Template UUID | |
| body | No | Updated body | |
| name | No | Updated name | |
| subject | No | Updated subject | |
| bodyHtml | No | Updated HTML body | |
| category | No | Updated category | |
| isActive | No | Updated active status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not state whether updates are partial or full replacement, whether omitted fields are preserved, what permissions are required, or what happens when changing isActive, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a brief tool description, though its brevity leaves important details unstated elsewhere.
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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the required id parameter, the partial-update semantics, or the existence of name, bodyHtml, and isActive fields, which an agent needs to invoke it 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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only names three of the updatable fields and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource ('Update a template') and lists content, subject, and category as updatable fields, which is clear enough to distinguish it from list/get/create siblings. However, it omits sibling names explicitly and does not mention all updatable fields present in the schema.
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, no mention that a template id is required, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.