Update device details

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: PATCH-like semantics where omitted fields are preserved. It still says nothing about permission requirements or side effects of reassigning a user, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the mutable field list followed by the update-semantics constraint and the sibling hand-off. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what can be changed and how partial updates behave. The remaining gap is result/return behavior and coupling between ownership and its date fields, which is minor given annotation coverage.

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 71%, and the description only echoes the four field groups already documented in the schema. It adds no meaning for ownership_start_date / ownership_end_date, which carry no schema description at all, so an agent gets no guidance on when those are required alongside ownership.

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 and resource ('Update a device') and enumerates the mutable fields (assigned user, friendly name, ownership, category), which lets an agent distinguish it from neighbours like activate_device, set_device_custom_attribute or assign_device_identifiers_to_user.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it is a partial update ('Only the fields you give are changed') and explicitly routes tag operations to add_device_tag / remove_device_tag. It stops short of naming when to prefer update_user-style reassignment or other siblings, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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