gns3_apply_config_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or mutating operation (though 'apply' suggests mutation), what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or whether configuration changes are immediate/permanent. The save_config parameter hints at persistence behavior, but this isn't explained in the description.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, bulleted template list, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the template list is lengthy (could be summarized). It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description partially compensates by explaining 3 parameters and listing templates. However, it misses critical context about the other parameters, authentication needs, and mutation behavior. The output schema likely handles return values, but the description doesn't mention what success/failure looks like.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining template_name (with 12 specific examples) and template_params ('varies by template'), and clarifying save_config's purpose. However, it doesn't cover the other 5 parameters (project_id, node_id, server_url, username, password), leaving important context gaps about target selection and authentication.

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 specific action ('Apply a pre-built configuration template to a device') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on template-based configuration rather than direct commands or other operations. It lists 12 specific template types, making the purpose highly concrete and differentiated.

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 usage context through the template list (e.g., use 'ospf' for OSPF routing configuration), but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like gns3_send_console_commands or gns3_bulk_configure_nodes. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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