migrate_iot_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It earns credit for the word 'Propose,' which tells the agent the tool does not unconditionally execute a migration and aligns with the dryRun default of true. However, it fails to disclose what actually happens when dryRun=false — whether devices are disconnected, network settings change, or the migration is reversible — which is significant for a potentially disruptive network operation.

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 a single 11-word sentence with the core action front-loaded before the object and destination. Every word contributes meaning, and nothing is redundant with the schema. This is appropriately concise and well structured.

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?

Although the tool has only two parameters, it is a mutation-capable tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no return-value description. The description omits prerequisites (e.g., running detect_iot_devices first), the effects of an actual migration, and what the tool returns. For an operation that can alter network state, this is too thin to be fully actionable.

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 schema already documents both parameters, justifying the baseline of 3. The description's 'target network' mirrors the targetNetworkId parameter and 'Propose' aligns with the dryRun default, but neither adds new semantic detail beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 specific action ('Propose migration') on a specific resource ('detected IoT devices') with a clear destination ('target network'). The verb distinguishes it from the sibling tools detect_iot_devices and enforce_iot_limits without needing to read their schemas. However, the word 'Propose' introduces a slight ambiguity about whether the tool actually performs the migration or only plans it.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that detection should happen first via detect_iot_devices, nor does it distinguish its role from enforce_iot_limits. An agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and the description's verb.

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