openwisp_update_device_coordinates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP verb/endpoint (implying a full replace via PUT), which is mild value, but says nothing about required permissions, the role of the 'key' credential, reversibility, or whether unspecified fields are cleared.

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?

Very short, front-loaded with the category and action, and free of filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the coordinate payload format, auth requirements, and side effects. Notably the input schema contains no coordinates field at all, so an agent gets no guidance on how coordinates are supplied or replaced.

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 both parameters (id, key) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, unit, or validation detail about the coordinate payload beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Update device coordinates') plus the category and HTTP endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what operation occurs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling openwisp_get_device_coordinates or the device-location tools, leaving ambiguity about which coordinate-related tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_device_coordinates or update_device_location. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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