surge_modify_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions that the tool modifies properties and the platform/version requirement. It fails to describe whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, requires authorization, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the purpose (Modify device properties) and then adds constraints (Mac only, version requirement). No extraneous information.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., modified device object, success status), error conditions, or how the required parameter physical_address is used. This is insufficient for a modify tool.

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% (all 4 parameters are described in the schema). The description restates the parameters from the schema without adding additional semantic meaning, such as format constraints (e.g., IP address format) or usage tips. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not elevate beyond that.

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 'Modify' and the resource 'device properties', and lists specific properties (name, IP address, should_handled_by_surge). It distinguishes from sibling tools like surge_list_devices (listing) and surge_toggle_feature (toggling) by indicating it is a modification tool.

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 provides explicit context: 'Mac only, requires Surge 4.0.6+', which guides the agent on platform and version prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, such as using surge_list_devices to find the device first.

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