assign_system_template

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., overwriting existing assignments), authorization requirements, whether the operation is synchronous, or error handling. This severely limits an agent's ability to predict the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by a compact parameter list, and a one-line return statement. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having an output schema (context signal), the description only states 'Returns: Assignment result' without specifying the structure (e.g., success flag, task ID, error details). The tool has 4 parameters and no enums, but the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., prerequisites, effects on device state). An agent would need additional information to use this tool reliably in a workflow.

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 'Args' section adds meaningful descriptions beyond the input schema's titles (e.g., 'ADOM name', 'System template name', 'Device name to assign', 'VDOM name (default: root)'). With schema description coverage at 0%, this compensation is effective, though some parameters (like adom) could benefit from more precise context (e.g., which ADOM scope applies).

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 tool's action: 'Assign a system template to a device.' This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like assign_sdwan_template and assign_system_template_bulk, which handle different template types or bulk operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., assign_system_template_bulk for multiple devices, assign_template_group for group assignments). An agent would have to infer context from the parameter list, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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