Register a protected device with Sentinel NetGuard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well on consequences: commands are only accepted through the broker, hard safety limits deny out-of-range commands, and observed state is monitored for tampering. It says nothing about required permissions, whether re-registering an existing id is idempotent or overwrites, or what happens on a conflicting address/port — meaningful gaps for a state-creating 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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the enrollment target and its constraint front-loaded before the post-registration behavior. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 an 8-parameter, all-required enrollment tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and enforcement semantics well but omits prerequisites, idempotency/conflict behavior, and any hint of what a successful enrollment returns. An agent would still need to guess at error and re-registration handling.

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 75%, so the schema already documents the key fields, including the semantics of hardLimitsC, normalBandC, and maxDefrostMinutes (deny outright / held for a human / held for approval). The description adds no field-level meaning beyond that — commandPort, address, name, and the relationship between hardLimitsC and normalBandC are left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb (enroll/register) and a precisely scoped resource: legacy/OT devices that cannot route actions through the agent gate, with concrete examples (refrigeration controller, PLC, building system). That scoping naturally separates it from sentinel_device_command (act on a device) and sentinel_device_telemetry (observe one).

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?

Gives a clear condition for use: the device is legacy/OT and cannot route actions through the agent gate. The implied exclusion of already-gated devices is strong, but no sibling is named as the alternative path for those devices, so the routing decision still requires inference.

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