Put a device into RMA state to initiate return merchandise authorization processing and manage device replacement workflows.
Put a device into RMA (Return Merchandise Authorization) state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. | |
| device_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states the effect (entering RMA state) without disclosing whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires permissions, triggers workflows, or has side effects.
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 concise sentence without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly more structured detail could improve clarity without bloating.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to mention return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or the broader RMA workflow context, making it incomplete for safe agent 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 coverage is 50% with body described vaguely as 'JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema.' The description adds no further detail on parameters, and device_id lacks any elaboration beyond the schema type.
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 ('Put a device into RMA state') and the resource ('device'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like sdcloud_reactivate_rma_device by specifying the RMA state activation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like sdcloud_get_rma_device_state, sdcloud_reactivate_rma_device, or sdcloud_set_rma_reactivation_preferences. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.