adoptDevice

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

The annotation already marks the operation as destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that warning. The description clarifies that the action moves a pending device into a site, but it does not disclose additional consequences such as provisioning side effects or reversibility; the annotation carries most of the safety burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, object, key, and destination.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits the significance of the optional siteId and the expected MAC address format. The destructive annotation and schema cover the rest, so the definition is minimally complete but has a clear gap around site-selection behavior.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping 'MAC address' to deviceMac and 'site' to siteId. However, it does not explain that siteId is optional or what happens when it is omitted, leaving ambiguity about site targeting.

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 names a specific action ('adopt'), the object ('pending device'), the identifying key ('MAC address'), and the destination ('into the site'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many read/list/update siblings, since no other tool covers adoption.

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 phrase 'pending device' gives clear context for when this tool should be used: for devices that have not yet been adopted, not for already-managed devices. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the pending-device scope provides sufficient usage guidance.

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