templates_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It notes the write operation via '[WRITE]' and the safeguard 'confirm=true'. The instruction to pass the full resource in bodyJson implies a full replacement (PUT semantics). However, it does not mention optimistic locking via fingerprint or error cases, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose with '[WRITE]', and the second adds essential prerequisite and parameter guidance.

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 key operational aspects (write, confirm, full resource). However, it lacks information about return value (since no output schema) and error handling. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that bodyJson should contain the full resource, which is helpful nuance beyond the schema. No explanation is given for the fingerprint parameter, but the schema already describes it.

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 an existing GTM template') and starts with '[WRITE]' to indicate mutation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like templates_create and templates_delete by specifying 'update' and 'existing'.

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 explicitly mentions prerequisites: GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true. However, it does not suggest when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., after a get). The guidance is clear but not comprehensive.

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