iva_devices

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies register/deregister as the operations but does not state that deregistration is destructive, whether confirmation may be required, or what side effects or prerequisites exist. The confirm parameter is only documented in the schema, not in the description.

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 main sentence is short and front-loaded with the key purpose. The trailing 'Clients API v2.28.12' is minor extra context, not harmful, but it does not earn its place as strongly as the core sentence.

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 tool with five parameters, nested deviceData, and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level summary. It does not clarify which parameters apply to register versus deregister, what deviceData should contain, or which operations need confirmation, so an agent could still struggle to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents action, confirm, deviceId, profileId, and deviceData. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which places it at the baseline of 3 rather than higher.

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 states a clear resource ('user devices') and specific operations ('register and deregister'), so an agent can identify the tool's core function. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools, but none of the listed siblings obviously overlaps with device registration management.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for registration versus deregistration. The action enum hints at the two flows, but the description itself provides no decision context.

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