balena_move_device

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that this is a write/mutation. It adds a confirmation-first guardrail but does not describe specific consequences beyond what 'move' implies. This is adequate given annotation coverage, but not rich.

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 short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating the operation and instructing confirmation. There is no filler, and the most important operational constraint is front-loaded.

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 simple 3-parameter destructive move, the description plus schema and annotations cover the core invocation needs. The confirm parameter itself references 'reviewing the target and consequences', and the annotations supply the destructive safety signal. It lacks detail about post-move behavior or return value, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.

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?

The schema only semantically documents 'confirm'; device_id and destination_fleet_id are just typed integer constraints. The description helps by tying the parameters to 'a device' and 'a different fleet', but it does not explain how to resolve or validate those IDs. Coverage is low, and the description compensates only minimally.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move'), names the resource ('a device'), and specifies the target ('a different fleet'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like rename_device, delete_device, or set_fleet_release without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 clear context: use this when moving a device to another fleet. It also adds an explicit procedural instruction ('Confirm the destination fleet first'). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool offers a move-device operation, so the guidance is sufficient.

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