aap_update_job_template

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: only provided fields are modified, and it returns a JSON string with the updated template id and name. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 short and well-structured: purpose, behavior, args, returns. Each sentence is necessary and information-dense 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?

The tool has one nested parameter with eight fields and no output schema, yet the description only vaguely refers to 'Fields to update' and gives a minimal return description. It explains partial update behavior and return value but leaves field semantics and requirements to be inferred from the schema, which has no descriptions. This is adequate for a simple update 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate by explaining fields. It only says 'Fields to update', which repeats the schema's existence without adding meaning. Field names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no semantics.

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 'Update an existing AAP job template (PATCH)' with a specific verb and resource, and the PATCH method clarifies partial modification. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, launch, and copy job templates.

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?

'Only fields provided will be changed' provides clear context for partial updates, implying it is for modifying existing templates without replacement. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is mentioned, so it falls short of a 5.

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