trmnl_update_device

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds useful behavioral detail: unsupported keys are silently dropped, native devices have model restrictions, and it changes remote state or starts work.

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 short and mostly front-loaded, with the core purpose first and edge-case behavior next. The final sentence is somewhat generic but still relevant to safe invocation.

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 complex nested-body mutation tool with no output schema, the description gives important field-dropping behavior and the endpoint, but it leaves broader response behavior, permission details, and full update semantics to the schema and annotations.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful conditional semantics for model-dependent body fields, but it does not cover all parameter meanings, and top-level path/profile semantics rely on the 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: "Update a device." It also clarifies that it applies the same settings as the device page and uses PATCH /api/devices/{id}, which makes the purpose clear without naming a specific sibling alternative.

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 only guidance is "Run only within the user-authorized scope" and the implication that this is for device updates. It does not say when to choose this over siblings such as trmnl_setup_device, trmnl_get_device, or other device-mutating tools.

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