update_template

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), it discloses patch semantics ('only the fields you provide are sent') and that a supplied body fully replaces the old one — the key destructive detail. It doesn't say whether overwritten content is recoverable or what the response contains.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste; the field list and the replacement caveat are front-loaded, and the sibling pointer comes last where it belongs.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, patch semantics, and the large-body alternative. Only minor gaps remain, such as the subject requirement being deferred entirely to the schema text.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds non-schema meaning: partial-update behavior (unspecified fields are left untouched) and the all-or-nothing nature of body. The body-replacement phrasing partially duplicates the schema, hence not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (template) plus the exact updatable fields (name, body, default flag, subject). It also names the sibling update_template_from_file, so the agent can distinguish it from the closest alternative without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to update_template_from_file when the body is large HTML, which is real when-to-use guidance. It doesn't cover when to prefer update_template over delete_template/create_template or mention prerequisites, so it stops short of full routing.

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