Devicegroup 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 no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as what gets destroyed, auth requirements, or side effects. It only restates the action.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no wasted text. It is appropriately concise for the amount of information it chooses to convey.

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?

Given that the input schema has full parameter coverage, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, the minimal description is nearly sufficient. The only notable gap is the lack of when-to-use guidance relative to siblings, but structured fields compensate well.

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 and their nested fields. The description adds no parameter semantics or syntax details. A baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields carry the full parameter burden.

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 verb and resource: 'Update a device group in LibreNMS.' It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like devicegroup_add or devicegroup_delete, so it falls short of a 5.

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 alternatives. It does not mention conditions for updating an existing group, prerequisites, or that devicegroup_add should be used for new groups. Usage is only implied by the name.

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