template_update

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing partial-update semantics: only passed fields change, and tasks replace the entire list if provided. This is valuable behavioral context that the schema alone does not fully convey. There is no contradiction with the annotations; idempotent and non-destructive hints are compatible with this behavior.

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 concise sentences convey the essential behavior with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the important task-replacement caveat is included without redundant explanation.

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 partial-update tool with a small schema and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuances: in-place editing and task-list replacement. It does not discuss alternative tools or edge cases, but the essential information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the update model: omitted fields remain unchanged, while the tasks array replaces the full list. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions on the name and description parameters. The schema documents id and tasks directly, but the description clarifies how all fields behave.

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 tool edits a template in place, which distinguishes it from template_create, template_delete, and template_apply. It also conveys that this is a partial update operation on an existing template, not a replacement of the template itself.

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 when to use this tool: to modify an existing template in place. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like template_create or template_apply, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is clear but left to inference.

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