Set Device

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits not in annotations: renaming device does not rename entities, labels replace existing ones, and how to disable/enable. Annotations only note destructiveHint=true, but the description adds rich context about the mutation behavior.

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 somewhat long but well-structured: purpose statement, important note, workflow, parameter list, examples. It is front-loaded with critical info. Every section is valuable, though could be slightly more concise.

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 the moderate complexity, annotations (destructiveHint), and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameters, important caveats, workflow, and examples. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 100% and each parameter has a description. The narrative description adds value by explaining semantics like 'replaces existing labels' and 'empty string to unassign', and provides examples. This goes beyond the schema but slightly redundant.

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 explicitly states 'Update device properties such as name, area, disabled state, or labels.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ha_get_device (read) and ha_set_entity (entity operations) by noting that renaming a device does not rename entities.

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 provides explicit guidance: it describes a common workflow for full rename combining with ha_set_entity, and explains when to use each parameter (e.g., area_id with '' to unassign). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the important note serves as a clear alternative.

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