provision_device

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

The description discloses that this is a 'Mutating operation' that re-pushes config and is 'persisted on the console,' adding behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also clarifies what the operation does not do—no firmware change and no power-cycling—which helps the agent understand the side effects and limits of the 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 well-structured with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by behavioral details, usage guidance, and parameters. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the input schema, which slightly reduces efficiency, but the overall length is reasonable and every prose sentence adds value.

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 mutating tool with three simple parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete: it states the purpose, behavior, persistence, exclusions, and exact usage context. No critical information for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 description's Args section essentially repeats the schema's parameter descriptions rather than adding new meaning. The prose does provide broader context for why parameters matter, but it does not go beyond the structured field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Force re-provision a device with its current configuration,' which uses a specific verb and resource and clearly states the operation's scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'upgrade_device or restart_device,' making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use after config edits to force the device to re-adopt current settings.' It further clarifies when not to use it by stating it does not change firmware or power-cycle like upgrade_device or restart_device, providing clear routing among alternatives.

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