Edit Template Draft

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: editing the source resets the template to 'draft', validate=True performs a save+test-compile with results surfaced via status/last_error, and the active default template is rejected by the backend. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loading the core edit action and the source-reset caveat. The parenthetical about returned status/last_error is slightly compressed but each sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's side effects, the validation shortcut and its result fields, and a key restriction. Only the undocumented display_name/template_id parameters leave a small gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains the validate parameter's semantics and the source parameter's side effect (reset to draft), but display_name and template_id are not described at all. Partial compensation for a 0% coverage schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Edit a draft template') and immediately scopes it against siblings by noting changing the source resets status to 'draft' and that re-validation can happen separately (routing away from validate_template). An agent can distinguish this from create_template_draft and validate_template without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use the one-call path ('Pass validate=True to save + test-compile in one call') versus validating separately, and states a hard when-not: the active default template cannot be edited and the backend rejects it. Both the alternative and the exclusion are named.

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