update-template

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

The annotations include 'destructiveHint: true', which already indicates this is a mutation operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as 'Update an existing email template' implies modification but doesn't detail effects like whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or rate limits. With annotations covering the destructive nature, the description provides basic but insufficient additional insight.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Update') and resource. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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's complexity (6 parameters, destructive operation, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, or how partial updates are handled (e.g., if only some fields are provided). With annotations covering only destructiveness, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'template_id' as 'ID of the template to update'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing email template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-template' or 'list-templates' beyond the basic action, missing explicit comparison that would earn a perfect score.

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 like 'create-template' for new templates or 'delete-template' for removal. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing template ID) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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