Update Device

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false), not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it updates mutable attributes but does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as what happens if the device is not found or if invalid values are provided. It is consistent with annotations but adds limited behavioral context.

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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the action and lists the attributes. The second provides use-case context and a constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 the tool has 7 parameters (one required), 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., device must exist), error cases, or expected behavior for invalid inputs. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema may cover that. Overall, it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists the modifiable parameters and provides high-level context (e.g., exception is a policy-enforcement exclusion) and examples. However, it does not explain each parameter in detail—for instance, the format of ip_addrs or valid values for server_group_id. The description adds some meaning but is not comprehensive.

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 resource (single device), lists the mutable attributes (custom_name, server_group_id, exception, tags, ip_addrs), and distinguishes itself from the sibling batch_update_devices tool by highlighting the single-device gap. It includes concrete use-case examples like renaming a device or moving it to a server 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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus batch_update_devices, noting that batch only handles tags and is bulk. It also states that only fields to change should be supplied and that at least one is required. However, it does not explicitly mention situations where this tool should not be used (e.g., when updating many devices at once).

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