ncloud_mailer_update_template

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata: it is a full replacement, meaning all key fields (templateName, title, body, senderAddress) must be sent again. It warns against the category being unchanged, which is a key limitation an agent must know before calling. No contradiction with 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?

The description is highly informative but arguably a bit of the legacy context is front-loaded; the essential operation ('Replace a mail template') appears only in the second sentence. Still, the wording is packed with essential legacy context, and there is no filler. It could be slightly reordered to front-load the action, but overall it earns a solid 4.

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's simplicity (9 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all key aspects: idea, the legacy caveat, the full replacement semantics, and a schema that is fully self-described. It makes the agent aware of the main call identity and constraints, which is adequate for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds value by flagging that all the listed parameters must be resent in the value, and notes that 'category' cannot be changed, which is a form of semantic constraint not obvious from the schema. This exceeds the baseline of 3 by conveying usage prerequisites.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replace a mail template (PUT /template/{templateSid})' and clarifies it is a full replacement rather than a partial update. It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes from siblings like 'update_mailer_template' or similar, and its legacy status is explicitly stated.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: only for projects migrated from Cloud Outbound Mailer, and only for a limited time. It also points to the new SENS alternatives (ncloud_sens_send_mail and ncloud_sens_list_mail_requests) for mail sending/lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly mention any alternative for template replacement that might pull in that area usage, but it gives a clear eligibility and deprecation context which is sufficiently useful.

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