devices_update_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that disabled_by can be set to None to re-enable, implying a toggle behavior. However, it does not discuss side effects, required permissions, error states, or the persistence of updates, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, 55 words, and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, partial update hint, and a parameter constraint. No extraneous words.

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 the moderate complexity (4 params, 1 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the update operation sufficiently. It provides partial update semantics and a key parameter constraint. The only gaps are lack of validation rules or constraints on name_by_user and area_id, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, yet the description adds meaningful guidance: it explains the usage of disabled_by (specific string or None) and implies that other fields are optional via 'Pass only the fields you want to change'. This compensates well for the lack of schema 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 'Update a device registry entry' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like devices_remove_device (which removes) and devices_list_devices (which lists). The mention of the WS endpoint adds technical context but does not cloud the purpose.

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 advises 'Pass only the fields you want to change', which is a clear guideline for partial updates. It also specifies allowed values for disabled_by ('user' or None to re-enable). Although it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, the narrow scope of the tool makes the usage context obvious.

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