identify_devices

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description earns credit beyond them by disclosing that originals are restored by default, that manual changes block restoration, and that keep/force each require specific confirmations. It stops short of describing failure modes or what status actually returns.

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?

Roughly sixty words with no filler, and the most consequential constraint (originals restored by default) is front-loaded. The telegraphic sentence fragments strain readability slightly, but every clause carries operational 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?

For a five-parameter, destructive, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers lifecycle, safety gates, and parameter prerequisites well. It leaves gaps on return values and error behavior, but the risky parts an agent must get right are documented.

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 the action field has no enum, so the description must carry the load; it does by enumerating actions (begin/status/finish/cancel/recover) and explaining tests, confirmed, keep, and force. Some nuance remains ambiguous, such as whether tests is only meaningful for begin.

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 'Two-controller identification', which gives a specific resource and implies the identify verb, but never plainly says what identification accomplishes or how it differs from siblings like get_device_status or list_devices. The body dives straight into the begin/status/finish protocol, leaving the overall goal implicit.

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 action space is laid out with conditions: begin requires agreed tests and confirmed=true, status reads recovery, finish keep=true confirmed=true keeps settings, and force only after fresh agreement. It also routes the agent onward ('Save confirmed side mapping separately'), though it names no sibling tool explicitly.

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