defender_update_machine

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

The tags 'a metadata write' adds useful context that this is not a heavy operational action, and it aligns with the annotations readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. However, it does not disclose that machine_tags replaces the entire existing tag set or mention any side effects beyond the schema's parameter description.

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?

A single sentence with a helpful parenthetical, with no wasteful words. The core action and subject are front-loaded, and the 'metadata write' qualifier clarifies the operation's nature efficiently.

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 simple 3-parameter update tool, the combination of description, annotations, and 100%-covered schema is largely sufficient to invoke it correctly. It does not explain return behavior or compare to the similar tag-related sibling, but those are secondary given the schema and sibling context.

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 the parameters are already well-documented: machine_id, device_value, and machine_tags each have descriptions. The description only restates what the schema already conveys, adding no additional semantic meaning or usage constraints.

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 clear verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('a device'), and the exact fields affected ('tags or device value'), so an agent knows what operation this performs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling defender_add_remove_machine_tag, but naming the device_value field narrows the scope.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are referenced. The description does not explain when to choose this over defender_add_remove_machine_tag or other update tools, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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