devices_update_device

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions updating, partial updates, and a specific field constraint. However, it does not describe authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The reference to the WebSocket command adds some 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?

Three concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage pattern, and specific parameter guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 simple update tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and one parameter. It omits possible error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., device must exist), but the schema implies device_id is required, so completeness is adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds value for 'disabled_by' by specifying acceptable values. Other parameters are self-explanatory from names, and the instruction to pass only changed fields clarifies optionality, but more explicit guidance could help.

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 'Update a device registry entry' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'devices_remove_device' and 'devices_list_devices' by focusing on updating an existing entry.

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?

It instructs to 'Pass only the fields you want to change' and provides a specific constraint on 'disabled_by', implying partial updates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for deletion) or reference alternatives.

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