request_pair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a pairing request and that user confirmation on the paired mobile is required, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it omits details such as whether the device must be discoverable, whether the request expires, or any permission requirements.

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, upfront sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and the key confirmation step efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, for an unannotated mutation-like tool, there is not enough guidance on how to obtain a valid device_id or what happens after the request is made. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain what device_id should be, where to obtain it, or whether it must come from scan_devices or list_devices. The word 'dispositivo' only weakly maps to the parameter. The schema provides the parameter name, but the description adds little semantic value.

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 action ('Pide emparejar un dispositivo') and the resource (a device). It also adds the distinctive detail that confirmation must happen on the mobile device. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like accept_pairing or reject_pairing, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is used to initiate pairing, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus accept_pairing, reject_pairing, or scan_devices. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer context.

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