Set Device Note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the read vs. write behavior, explains that omitting note or using an empty string reads the current note, and details the difference between replace and append modes. However, it does not describe the return format or any potential side effects beyond overwriting in replace mode.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential information without repetition or fluff. It is compact and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behaviors and parameter semantics well. It omits the return format when reading, but the intent is implied. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap that keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that deviceTag can be a UID, IP, or name fragment, and it clarifies the behavior of the note parameter (omit/empty for read) and mode parameter (replace vs append). This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 a specific verb-resource combination: 'Read or save helpful context about one micrOS device.' It provides concrete examples of the content (location, hardware, purpose) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_devices or run_command by focusing specifically on device notes.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: for reading or saving device context. It explains how to target a device and the modes for updating, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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