assign_sdwan_template_bulk

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers the single most important caveat: 'requested_count' is not a count of successful assignments, because FortiManager returns no per-device result for this scope-member ADD and the client raises on any non-zero code. That is a real behavioral disclosure an agent cannot get from the schema. It stops short of other mutation risks — whether reassignment overwrites an existing template, whether failures are partial, or whether a commit_adom is required afterward.

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?

Front-loaded with a single clear purpose sentence, followed by compact Args and a focused Returns caveat. The one blemish is the internal reference '(same shape as #78's device-group bulk tools)', which is noise for an agent, though the caveat it annotates is worth the words.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns block is partly redundant — though the requested_count warning adds meaning beyond it. What's missing for a bulk mutation tool with no annotations is operational context: overwrite/reassignment behavior, partial-failure semantics, and whether a subsequent commit_adom or install is needed for the assignment to take effect.

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 compensate, and it mostly does: it glosses all three parameters and, critically, supplies the concrete element shape for devices — '[{"name": "dev1", "vdom": "root"}]' — which the bare schema (array of string-keyed objects) does not reveal. It omits whether vdom is optional, whether devices must already exist in the ADOM, and whether the template name must come from list_sdwan_templates.

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, resource and scope: 'Assign an SD-WAN template to multiple devices.' The 'multiple devices' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the single-device sibling assign_sdwan_template, but the description never names that sibling or the unassign counterpart, so the differentiation is only inferable.

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 explicit statement of when to use this versus assign_sdwan_template (single) or assign_system_template_bulk. Usage is implied by 'multiple devices' in the first line, but there are no preconditions, no exclusions, and nothing about ADOM lock or commit requirements that would guide an agent choosing among the assignment tools.

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