update_device_profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the most important behavior: identity and hardware are merged while interfaces are replaced wholesale, with fingerprint and transport immutable and a stated reason (they identify the physical target). Missing are error behavior for an unknown device_id and any permission/auth requirements, but the merge-vs-replace distinction is genuinely high-value disclosure a caller could not infer.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then the merge/replace rule, then the immutability constraint. No filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 output schema covers return values, and the description covers mutation semantics, merge behavior, and immutability — the core gaps for an unannotated write tool. Remaining shortfall is failure modes (unknown device, invalid keys inside 'updates') and permission requirements, which matter for a mutation with no annotations.

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 0% and 'updates' is an unconstrained additionalProperties object, so the description must compensate, which it largely does by naming the four accepted categories and explicitly listing the two keys that must not be sent. It still leaves the internal field names of the identity and hardware objects unspecified.

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 (edit) and a precise resource (a saved device profile), then enumerates the editable facets: name, identity, hardware metadata, interface list. That is enough to separate it from inspect_device, export_device_profile, forget_device, and the discovery siblings, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the mutation framing and by the exclusion of fingerprint/transport fields, which tells the agent this is not the tool for re-identifying a device. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'for X use Y instead', and no prerequisites about the profile having been saved or the device being known.

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