shelly_system_update

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already signals a risky operation, and the description usefully adds the safety gate ('Requires confirm:true') plus the channel enumeration. It still omits the practical consequences of a firmware flash — device reboot, downtime, irreversibility, or interruption risk — which is the context an agent most needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Two short front-loaded clauses with no filler; the mutation and its enum values appear first, followed by the safety precondition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the confirm/channel semantics are covered. What is missing for a destructive firmware operation is the operational impact (reboot/downtime) and the meaning of the required device parameter.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It documents the channel enum values (stable|beta) and the confirm gate, which is genuinely useful, but the required `device` parameter is never explained (identifier format, multiple devices, etc.), leaving a coverage gap.

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+resource ('Trigger a firmware update'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like shelly_get_info or shelly_system_reboot. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the nearby system-mutation siblings such as shelly_system_reboot or shelly_rpc_write.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given beyond the mechanical requirement of confirm:true; there is no statement about when to prefer this over shelly_rpc / shelly_rpc_write or the reboot tool, nor about prerequisites such as connectivity or device state.

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