template_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'convert' and fails to mention critical consequences such as the container becoming a template, becoming non-startable as a regular container, or the irreversible nature of the operation. No side effects, permissions, or state changes are disclosed.

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, short, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or information. It effectively communicates the core purpose without padding.

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?

The description is under-specified for a mutation tool: there is no output schema, no annotations, no parameter explanations, and no disclosure of prerequisites or post-conditions. It does not explain what happens to the source container or whether a copy is created, leaving the agent with an incomplete mental model of the operation.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description adds no meaning for the 'node' and 'vmid' parameters. It doesn't state which parameter is the container ID or what 'node' refers to, leaving the agent without sufficient information to correctly populate these required fields.

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 clearly states the action (convert) and resource (an LXC container) and the outcome (reusable template), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like template_vm (which likely converts a VM) and clone_container (which creates a copy without conversion).

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to create a template from an existing LXC container) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., container must be stopped), or exclusions. It is a bare functional statement without contextual use cases.

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