Replace an existing OpenWISP template by its UUID via a PUT request, updating the stored template configuration for network device provisioning.
[Category: Templates] Replace a template. (HTTP PUT /api/v1/controller/template/{id}/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Template UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only mentions the HTTP PUT endpoint, which hints at full replacement, but it does not disclose permissions required, whether unspecified fields are cleared, idempotency, or any side effects. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage needs more.
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?
Very concise, with the core action front-loaded. The category tag and endpoint add some framing but no significant waste. A slightly more informative sentence could have earned a 5.
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 replace/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least mention that the full template definition must be supplied in the request body, but the schema only lists id and the description says nothing about it. This leaves a critical gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.
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 100% and the only parameter (id) is documented as 'Template UUID' in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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: 'Replace a template.' The HTTP PUT endpoint reinforces that this is a full replacement. It does not explicitly name the sibling patch_template as the partial-update alternative, but the word 'Replace' implicitly differentiates it.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch_template, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description is a bare statement with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.