update_device

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: writes (risk=medium), captures prior values for undo, supports dry_run, and the specific attributes allowed. This provides comprehensive transparency about side effects and safety mechanisms.

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 yet complete: a short introductory sentence, a sentence detailing undo behavior, one for dry_run, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No superfluous content.

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 lacks information about the return value (e.g., success response, updated device details) and error conditions. Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of 4 parameters, these gaps limit completeness. Otherwise, it covers most behavioral aspects.

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 description adds essential meaning beyond the sparse schema: explains that 'attrs' accepts specific keys (name, tags, address, notes, lat, lng, floorPlanId), describes 'dry_run' as a preview mechanism, and clarifies that 'target' defaults to config. The schema only defines types and titles, so the description is critical.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'device attributes' with specific examples (name, tags, address, notes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like reboot_device or blink_device_leds, which perform different actions. The [WRITE] tag further clarifies the operation type.

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 explains key usage details: dry_run for preview, undo/audit trail, and configurable target. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool (e.g., for read-only tasks) or compare it to similar tools like update_network_vlan. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives.

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