trmnl_retry_device_firmware_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond that by explaining the side effect ('clears the backoff ... next check-in offers it again'), the endpoint, and an authorization scope constraint. It doesn't spell out reversibility or return behavior, keeping it at 4.

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 front-loaded with the core action and mechanism in the first two lines, then adds endpoint and scope notes. It is efficient with no filler, though the endpoint URL line is somewhat redundant with the name.

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 mutation tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, side effect, and authorization scope well enough for correct invocation. The only gap is lack of detail on the profile parameter.

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 50% with two parameters (device_id, profile), both of which already carry descriptions in the schema. The description only implies device scoping via the endpoint path and says nothing about the profile parameter, so it adds little meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retry a stalled firmware update') and then explains the mechanism it uses ('Clears the backoff'). This is precise enough that an agent can distinguish it from other device tools and understand exactly what the operation does.

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 gives a clear condition for use ('a device stuck on an available firmware update') and a scope restriction ('Run only within the user-authorized scope'). It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion, since there is no sibling retry/resync-firmware tool, so 4 rather than 5 is appropriate.

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