nido_template

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: delete is a destructive, irreversible operation on reusable infrastructure yet no warning is given, nor any statement about what happens to VMs built from the template or whether the source VM must be in a particular state before create. Only the multi-action dispatch model ('a single tool') is conveyed.

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 resource and the action list, with no filler beyond the slightly redundant 'with a single tool'. Nothing essential is buried.

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?

This is a three-action mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain per-action preconditions and effects. It instead covers only the action inventory and one alternative, leaving delete semantics and create prerequisites undocumented.

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 75%, near the high-coverage baseline, and the schema already explains name, vm_name and template_name per action. The description adds the valid action values but says nothing about formats, name collisions on create, or whether name is required for delete beyond the enum.

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 ('Manage reusable VM templates') and enumerates the three supported actions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool covers. It does not differentiate against the sibling tools (nido_vm, nido_image, nido_blueprint), which matters since templates sit close to both VM and image concepts.

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?

Provides one concrete routing rule: use nido://fleet/templates when only inspecting names, which steers the agent away from the read path here. It stops short of saying when to prefer create/delete versus blueprint or image tools, so half the action surface has no guidance.

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