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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a draft is updated, but does not explain whether this is a partial or full replacement, what happens to a published version, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like.

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 extremely short, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words. It is slightly too terse for a 7-parameter mutation tool, but conciseness is high.

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 7-param update operation with no annotations and no output schema, a single sentence leaves major gaps: required identifiers, which fields can be updated, draft-only behavior, and mutation semantics. An agent would have to rely almost entirely on the schema.

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 57%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify which fields are patchable, how blocks or variables should be structured, or how message_type interacts with templates.

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?

"Update one template draft" names a specific verb (update), a specific resource (template draft), and the singular scope. It clearly stands apart from siblings like template_create, template_publish, template_archive, and template_get.

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 phrase "template draft" implies this is for editing an existing draft rather than creating, publishing, or archiving one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no named alternatives.

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