add_device

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

Annotations declare it is a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: 'Routers and switches boot immediately' tells the agent the device becomes active on add, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of stating auth needs or whether a failed add is reversible.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the boot behavior and return note. No filler; every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, and it appropriately just notes the device is returned as shown. Combined with the boot-behavior note and full schema coverage, it is nearly complete; only cross-tool routing (remove_device, arrange_devices) is absent.

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 100%, so all four parameters (model, name, x, y) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the model-name source and optional naming/placement but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (Add) and resource (a device to the logical workspace) with the scope constraint that it is selected by model name. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_models and list_devices, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent to list_models for valid model names and explains the x/y pairing (both or neither). However it gives no exclusions or guidance on when to prefer add_module, connect, or power_cycle_all instead, so usage is clear-context but not fully comparative.

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