Update Template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the submitted template replaces the stored one, which is a critical destructive behavior. It also implies a read-before-write workflow. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or versioning, but the replace semantics are usefully exposed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides essential operational nuance about replacement and read-modify-write behavior. 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?

The description, combined with the fully documented input schema and output schema, gives the agent everything needed to call this tool correctly. It highlights the most important operational trap (replace, not patch) and points to the companion get_template call. The fingerprint concurrency behavior is already covered in the schema.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful parameter guidance beyond the schema by emphasizing that the 'template' parameter must be the complete resource, not a partial patch, and that it should come from a prior get_template call.

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 custom template in a workspace') and differentiates it clearly from sibling read/create/delete/revert operations. It also signals the unique replace semantics, making it easy to distinguish from create_template and get_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?

The description gives concrete when-to-use guidance: read the template with get_template first, then send the whole thing back with edits. It provides clear context for the read-modify-write workflow, though it does not explicitly enumerate exclusions such as 'use create_template for new templates.'

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