update-stl-sms-template

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it adds the endpoint method (PUT) and required scope (stl:write), which hint at mutation and authorization. However, it does not explain whether this is a partial or full replacement, how omitted fields are treated, or any side effects—leaving the most important behavioral semantics for an update operation unstated.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler; endpoint and scope are appended efficiently without unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral detail (scored elsewhere).

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is too sparse: it omits update semantics, parameter meaning for body and name, and any response/return information. Even with a simple schema, an agent cannot safely determine whether it can send only body, only name, or must include all fields.

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 only 33% since only 'id' has a description in the schema; name and body are undocumented. The tool description does not compensate by explaining that name/body represent the template's fields, leaving two of three parameters semantically undefined.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('STL SMS template'), and it names the HTTP method and endpoint (PUT /api/public/stl/sms-templates/{id}) for exact identification. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create-, get-, list-, and delete-stl-sms-template by the action verb.

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 description offers only the verb 'Update' to infer this tool is for modifying an existing template; it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to alternatives such as create-stl-sms-template for new templates. No exclusions, prerequisites, or usage contexts are provided, so an agent must rely on general naming conventions.

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