Devicegroup Add Devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top: it doesn't say whether the add appends to or replaces existing membership, whether it needs specific permissions, or what happens on duplicate device IDs. With annotations present the bar is lower, but zero added context earns a 2.

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 waste or filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5 for structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the schema fully documents both parameters. What's missing is behavioral context for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation (append vs replace, duplicate handling), leaving the definition minimally viable.

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%, including the nested payload format {"devices": [1, 2, 3]}, so the schema carries full parameter documentation. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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: adding devices to a device group in LibreNMS. This distinguishes it from the sibling devicegroup_remove_devices by the verb alone, though it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 mention of the alternative devicegroup_remove_devices or devicegroup_devices, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer from the name alone when this tool applies.

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