validate_template

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It states a read-only check ('validates', 'checks') and mentions async behavior (returns Task ID). Does not explicitly confirm non-destructive, but enough context is given.

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?

Description is very concise: a one-sentence summary followed by bulleted Args and a Returns note. No fluff, information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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?

Describes core functionality and return type (Task ID). Does not mention prerequisites like device or template group existence, but given 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists parameters with generic qualifiers ('ADOM name', 'Template group name') but adds no extra constraints or format details. Barely above bare schema naming.

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 uses a specific verb 'Validate' and identifies the resource 'template group for a device'. It explains the check (metadata variables resolved), distinguishing it from siblings like 'assign_template_group' or 'get_template_group'.

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 when to use (pre-deployment validation) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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