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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false), yet the description still adds substantial context they cannot: rename/type changes survive provider rediscovery, disabled endpoints stay metadata-readable but cannot receive messages, DELETE may be undone by rediscovery, and MERGE_INTO leaves the source disabled without creating an ID alias.

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?

Purpose and the operation menu are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence carries non-obvious behavior. It is a dense ~190-word block that would read faster as a per-operation list, and a couple of clauses (rediscovery mentioned twice) could be consolidated.

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 destructive, multi-operation, open-world-adjacent tool this covers preconditions, per-operation consequences, conflict behavior, and the user-confirmation step; return values are handled by the existing output schema, so nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 83% and each parameter already carries a description, so the description only needs to add constraints. It does add the critical one ('full endpoint ID from endpoint_query') and the conditional applicability of mergeInto, name, type and enablement via the operation list, though it never maps operation values to their required parameters explicitly.

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 ('manage the names, types and registry entries of your devices and connected services') and enumerates the exact operation set. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'control' by declaring it never performs physical control, and points to endpoint_query for the ID.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Use endpoint_query first and copy the full endpoint ID'), a decision rule for the common ambiguity (two simulator endpoints return 409; 'disable or delete the duplicate instead'), and a pre-flight requirement for the irreversible ops ('identify the actual endpoint and explain the effect to the user; never assume two endpoints are duplicates because their names match').

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