pdf_template_config_update

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context that the configuration is 'applied to all generated PDFs', which is useful blast-radius information, but it never states whether partial updates merge with existing values or replace them — a material question given zero required parameters.

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 sentences, the mutation target stated first and the customizable fields enumerated second; no wasted preamble. The field enumeration partially restates schema property names, which costs a little density.

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?

With no output schema required, full schema coverage on all 9 parameters, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only meaningful omission is update/merge semantics for optional fields, which slightly limits confidence.

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 parameter meaning is already documented, including the enum for templateSlug and the legal note on showVatInRon. The description's field list (design, colors, fonts, logo, bank info, footer, CSS) mirrors the schema rather than adding merge/validation semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb-resource pair ('Update the PDF template configuration') with a stated scope ('for the current company') and an enumeration of the configurable surface. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the pdf_template_config_get/preview/templates siblings, though the write verb makes the distinction reasonably evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus pdf_template_config_get (inspect), pdf_template_config_preview (preview), or pdf_template_config_templates (list designs), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. A reader must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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