Update post template

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the confirmation requirement, the org-admin/owner authorization nuance, and the note that provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200. It does not, however, state what happens to unmentioned fields on update.

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?

Compact but slightly run-on: it packs ownership scope, an internal GraphQL reference, a confirmation rule, and error semantics into one stream with a stray double period. The filler phrase "Current Buffer GraphQL updatePostTemplate" adds little for an agent.

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 an 11-param destructive mutation with a nested payload object and no output schema, the description covers authorization scope, confirmation, and error semantics well. Remaining gaps (payload vs payload_file vs individual field precedence) are handled by the schema, so the definition is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema (including payload vs payload_file mutual exclusivity and the rejected `public` visibility). The description only adds "Use upstream fields to bound data" for the fields param, which is marginal over the schema's own `--fields` note. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("Update a post template") and further narrows scope by ownership (caller-owned, or internal templates for org admin/owner). This cleanly distinguishes it from create_post_template, get_post_template, and delete_post_template.

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?

"Requires explicit confirmation" gives a gating condition for invoking, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., create_post_template for new templates, get_post_template for reads). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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