nginx_set_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says 'Apply' and mentions 'confirm: Required', but never states what the operation does to existing nginx configuration, whether it is reversible, what side effects occur, or why confirmation is needed. This is a mutating tool whose consequences are left mostly to inference.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clean argument list. The format is efficient, though 'Required.' and the trailing ellipsis are slightly underinformative.

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 mutating tool with no annotation coverage and no schema parameter descriptions, this is incomplete. Missing are preconditions, the effect on existing templates, confirm semantics, and what happens after application. The output schema exists, so return value details are less critical, but the operational context is still too thin.

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 add meaning. It does add useful values for 'template' and clarifies 'impersonate' as 'Owning user'. However, 'domain: Domain' is near-tautological, and 'confirm: Required' is ambiguous—and appears to conflict with the schema where confirm is optional with a default of false.

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 names a specific action ('Apply'), a specific resource ('Pro Pack Nginx CMS template'), and gives concrete examples. It is clearly distinct from the surrounding sibling tools, none of which are about setting nginx templates.

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?

No guidance about when to use this tool vs alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The sibling list is large, but the description provides no routing context such as 'use this after creating a domain' or 'use wp_install to actually install WordPress'.

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