Update Template

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds value by specifying what aspects can be updated (name, property schema, access rules), which clarifies the scope of changes beyond just 'update template.' It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects, but with good annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Update a template's') and lists key updatable aspects. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration—every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage, rich annotations (covering mutation, idempotency, etc.), and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't explain the response format, error conditions, or how partial updates work (e.g., are all parameters optional except template_id?). For a mutation tool, more behavioral context would be helpful despite good annotations.

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%, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'template_id' as 'Resource ID', 'name' as 'New name'). The description lists updatable fields ('name, property schema, or access rules') which maps to parameters but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Update') and resource ('template') along with specific fields that can be modified ('name, property schema, or access rules'). It distinguishes from creation tools like 'dual_create_template' by focusing on updates, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'dual_update_object' or 'dual_update_organization' that work on different resource types.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a template_id), when not to use it, or compare it to sibling tools like 'dual_get_template' for viewing or 'dual_delete_template' for removal. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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