tenki_build_template

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

Annotations already convey mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotence (idempotentHint=false). The description adds the asynchronous build lifecycle (polling until READY) and how the result feeds into sandbox creation. It could mention resource implications or cancellation, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar and the added context is valuable.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action and then provides the essential follow-up workflow. 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what to do with the returned build (poll and extract imageDigestRef). Combined with thorough schema descriptions for parameters, an agent can invoke the tool and integrate it into the sandbox-creation flow. Minor omissions like failure handling are not critical.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning; it focuses on the workflow. The schema already explains build_env, image_name, build_secrets, and publish_raw_image, so this is acceptable.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Trigger a build for a template'), the outcome ('producing a bootable image'), and the relationship to sibling tools (poll with tenki_get_template_build, use digest with tenki_create_sandbox). This clearly distinguishes it from other template-related tools.

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 a clear usage context: trigger a build, then poll the resulting build until READY and feed its imageDigestRef to tenki_create_sandbox. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when just inspecting a template), but the workflow is concrete enough to route an agent correctly.

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