Update Template

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: confirmation is required for this exact action, provider charges/hosting/sharing/deletion may apply, and unknown outcomes must not be retried automatically. It does not disclose whether the update is full replacement or partial, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identity before the risk warnings, with no padding. The appended Base URL line is irrelevant to tool selection and is minor noise.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a deeply nested Edit payload, three alternate body forms and no output schema, the description covers the safety contract but omits the mechanics an agent needs: whether omitted fields are cleared, and which of payload/template/payload_file to choose.

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 86%, so the schema already documents id, name, account, confirm, payload, template and payload_file. The description only reinforces the id parameter and alludes to the confirm flag; it does not clarify the mutually exclusive body options or how 'name'/'template' interact with 'payload'.

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 an existing template') and pins the identity mechanism ('by template id'), so an agent can distinguish it from create_template/delete_template/get_template without opening a schema. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, which is why it is not a 5.

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 text mandates explicit confirmation and warns against auto-resubmitting unknown outcomes, but that is operational policy, not routing guidance. There is no statement of when to use this versus create_template, render_template, or the partial-update alternatives (payload vs template vs payload_file).

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