zont_add_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate serial numbers or errors, or any rate limits. The parameter hints (e.g., 'tel_password: only digits') add minor context, but overall behavioral disclosure is thin for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by parameter explanations. It is appropriately sized for a 9-parameter tool, though it slightly lacks front-loading of critical usage constraints. Each line earns its place by clarifying a parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves gaps in behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, and whether the device is immediately usable. It is adequate but not complete for a creation tool with nine parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by providing human-readable explanations for all nine parameters, including examples for devtype (T100, T102, L1000, etc.), format for wifi_credentials, and constraints like 'tel_password: only digits'. This significantly improves parameter understanding beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Добавить новое устройство в аккаунт пользователя ZONT' (Add a new device to the ZONT user account). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like zont_delete_device and zont_update_device, which perform different operations on devices.

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 by stating it adds a device to a user account, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. For a creation tool, guidance on needing an authenticated account or conflicts with existing serial numbers would be valuable but is absent.

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