Set device UDFs

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

The description indicates the tool mutates device UDFs but does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or error conditions. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it falls short by omitting important behavioral traits.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences with no unnecessary words. The key information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose and usage.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, the description provides adequate context for selection. However, it does not mention the return value or error handling, which would be beneficial for a mutation tool. The lack of output schema further necessitates some description of what to expect after 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?

Although the input schema already documents the two parameters with 100% coverage, the description adds critical context by specifying the allowed keys as 'udf1 through udf30' for the 'udfs' object. This constrains the permissive additional properties schema, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Set' and the resource 'user-defined fields on a device', providing a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying the scope (UDFs) and hinting at partial updates ('Provide only the fields to change').

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 description implies usage guidance by stating 'Provide only the fields to change', which suggests partial updates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as the sibling 'datto_set_device_warranty'.

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