update-template

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral trait of partial updates ('Only provided fields change'), aligning with idempotency. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios. The description adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value. No redundant information.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but does not explain return values or error scenarios. It is adequate for a mutation tool with good schema coverage, but could be more complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists the mutable fields (name, image, ports, env, readme) but omits containerRegistryAuthId, which is also mutable per schema. It adds the partial update semantic, which is valuable but not extensive.

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), the resource (template), and specifies the mutable fields (name, image, ports, env, readme). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create-template or delete-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 implies usage context with 'Only provided fields change,' indicating partial update semantics. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., update-pod, update-tag) or mention prerequisites like the template must exist. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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