update_template_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method 'PATCH' which implies a partial update, but does not explain side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens when fields are omitted. The description adds only minimal behavior beyond the operation name.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and fields, and includes an important exclusion. There is no wasted text, and it is easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool is a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't mention return values, error cases, prerequisites, or any operational context that an agent would need to invoke it correctly. The description is minimal to the point of being under-specified.

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 compensate. It names the three parameters (remark, spec, testingItemName) but provides no additional meaning about their purpose, formatting, or constraints beyond what their names suggest. The schema already lists them with types, so the description adds little value over the raw 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?

The description clearly states the action (PATCH update) and the specific fields (remark/spec/testingItemName), and explicitly mentions it does not modify Schema, which differentiates it from schema-related tools like set_full_schema or update_schema. However, it's terse and doesn't elaborate on the broader purpose beyond these fields.

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?

It implies a usage constraint by stating '不改 Schema' (don't change Schema), which suggests using this tool only for metadata updates. However, it does not explicitly describe when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context that would guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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