update_device

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals the internal fetch-then-update behavior to handle mandatory fields. This adds significant transparency about side effects (the tool does a read before write). However, it does not mention any destructive actions or permissions needed.

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 concise with two clear paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the purpose. The second paragraph adds necessary implementation detail without extra fluff.

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 8 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter details, or usage examples. The behavioral note is helpful but insufficient.

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 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters, the description provides no individual parameter meanings. It only generalizes that provided fields are merged. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Update a device' with a specific verb and resource. It explains the merge behavior, distinguishing it from create or delete tools. The sibling tools are for different resources (applications, profiles), so no confusion.

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 explains how the tool works (merge) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create_device or other update tools. It implies usage for partial updates but lacks explicit context.

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