assign_template_group

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states only that the tool 'assigns', which implies a create/update operation, but does not disclose idempotency, destructiveness, locking requirements, or whether the assignment replaces existing ones. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise with a clear structure: one-line purpose, a bullet-like list of arguments, and a returns line. No extraneous information, though the returns line adds minimal value.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and a sparse description, the tool definition lacks completeness. It does not explain error conditions, required object existence (e.g., template_group must exist), or ADOM context. The returns line is vague. An agent would struggle to use this tool reliably without additional documentation.

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 beyond parameter names. It merely lists the parameter names (adom, template_group, device, vdom) without explaining their roles or constraints. The schema already provides these names, so no added value.

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 action ('assign') and the resource ('template group to a device'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like assign_package or assign_system_template, which share the same verb-resource pattern.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., assign_package for provisioning templates). There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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