Replace a preview device set's name and devices. This is a full replace, so send every device the set should keep. The Courier Recommended set cannot be changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The new name | |
| device_ids | Yes | Device ids (pvd_...) from list_preview_devices. An id the catalog does not list is rejected. | |
| device_set_id | Yes | The device set id (pvs_...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the key behavioral detail that this is a full replace (so the caller must send every desired device) and the restriction that the Courier Recommended set is immutable. These go beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only) and provide useful context without contradiction.
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 two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the critical caveat about full replace and the immutable Courier Recommended set. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description covers the essential behavior, the special-casing of the Courier Recommended set, and the requirement to send the full device list. With no output schema, it doesn't need to describe return values. It is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 100%, with each parameter already well-documented (including the pvd_ prefix and validation for device_ids). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action (Replace) and resource (preview device set), and clarifies scope with 'full replace' and the restriction on the Courier Recommended set. It clearly distinguishes from create/get/list siblings by the replace verb and the explicit note about being a full replacement.
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 clearly instructs when use this tool: to replace the entire device set, requiring the full list of devices. It also gives a when-not by stating the Courier Recommended set cannot be changed. It does not mention alternative tools explicitly, but the intent is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
