Device Update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds nothing on top of that: it doesn't say whether fields are patched (merge) or replaced, which fields can disrupt polling/alerts, or that omitted fields are left untouched. For a destructive mutation with zero added context, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness is what leaves the other dimensions thin rather than being wasteful.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema documents both parameters fully. However, for a destructive, nested-payload mutation, the description omits merge semantics and the consequences of fields like disabled/snmp_disable — gaps the structured fields don't cover.

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%, and the payload property itself enumerates all patchable fields, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, which sets the baseline at 3.

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 clear verb and resource ('Update device fields in LibreNMS'), but 'fields' is generic and gives no hint of what is updatable or how it differs from near-siblings like device_rename or device_set_maintenance. An agent cannot distinguish this tool from its device_* siblings without opening the schema.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description never says to use this for arbitrary field patches versus device_rename for hostname changes or device_set_maintenance for maintenance state, all of which exist as siblings.

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