zadig_build_template_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that dry_run defaults to true, meaning the tool is non-destructive by default, and that mode can select create/update behavior. However, it does not explain the meaning of confirm, what happens when confirm is true, how allow_redacted behaves, or what kind of output is returned. This is partial disclosure: enough to underestimate safety, but not enough for confident invocation.

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 concise: three short sentences with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and then supplies the two most decision-relevant defaults/options. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the tool is complex: seven parameters, one required nested object, multiple modes, and a confirm/dry_run safety flow. The description only covers mode and dry_run, leaving template content, identifier strategy, confirm semantics, and redaction behavior unspecified. It is not enough for an agent to reliably construct a correct and safe call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds value by documenting mode's allowed values and dry_run's default, but it fails to explain the required template object, template_id, template_name, confirm, or allow_redacted. Since the only required parameter, template, is a nested object with no property descriptions, an agent cannot know what shape to provide.

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 states the tool's core behavior with a specific verb and resource: "Create or update one build template." It also previews the mode values (auto, create, update), which hints that this is a unified apply operation rather than the separate create/update sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from zadig_build_template_create or zadig_build_template_update, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 gives some usage context by listing the mode options and the dry_run default, implying that callers can choose auto, create, or update and can preview changes first. It does not state when to use this tool instead of the sibling create/update/delete/diff tools, nor does it explain the role of confirm in actually applying changes. This is usable but relies heavily on inference.

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