Modify a form message template

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

Despite annotations already marking destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and warns that the operation may notify recipients or change tenant data. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent understand real-world consequences.

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 three sentences and covers the endpoint, body fields, reference link, and safety requirements. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words, though the reference URL could be considered slightly extraneous for a concise definition.

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 covers the essential operational points (HTTP method, body fields, confirm requirement, side effects) but does not mention what the response looks like, how the specific template is identified within the form, or any limitations on which fields are modifiable. Given the generic body schema and no output schema, this leaves some gaps for the agent.

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?

With schema description coverage at 75%, the generic 'body' parameter is only partially documented. The description adds crucial meaning by naming the body fields (email, sms, voice), which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the confirm parameter's role by restating confirm:true in context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('form message template'), and provides the exact HTTP endpoint POST /api/xm/1/forms/{formId}/message-templates. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_form_message_templates, get_form_message_templates, and other modify tools that target different resources.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a template already exists vs. creating a new one. It lists requirements (operator write opt-in, confirm:true) and warns about side effects, but provides no direct comparison or routing to sibling tools.

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