zont_update_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — the merge/partial-update semantics where unspecified fields retain their previous values — but says nothing about authentication requirements, reversibility, validation failures, or any rate limits on a clearly mutating call.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are short and functional, with the behavioral note about partial updates placed before the parameter documentation. The sentence deferring the full settings list to external documentation is somewhat loose but still earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers how to call the tool, what happens to unspecified fields, and where to find the full settings catalog. The main remaining gap is the absence of any permission/error context for an un-annotated mutation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it identifies device_id as the device ID and explains settings as a changeable-settings object with a concrete nested example {"thermostat_mode_temps": {"comfort": 21}} plus a pointer to the API's device-parameters section. It doesn't enumerate the full settings catalog, but it adds real meaning 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 opening sentence states a specific verb (Изменить) and resource (настройки устройства ZONT), and the examples (thermostat mode, target temperatures, trusted numbers) make the scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like zont_set_io_port or zont_send_custom_command, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives useful invocation guidance — pass only the fields to change and the rest keep prior values — which implicitly tells the agent this is a partial-update tool, not a full overwrite. However, it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as zont_send_custom_command, so selection guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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