update_camera

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses immediate persistence on the Protect console, the need for username/password configuration, and the camera's ID-or-name resolution behavior. This adds substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: the opening sentence defines the operation, the mutation note follows immediately, then a cleanly formatted Args list with a Returns line. The Args section duplicates some schema text but remains readable and free of fluff.

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 output schema, the description covers essential invocation context: required auth, immediate/persisted effect, device targeting fallback, and a return indication. It lacks only a richer return shape and explicit sibling routing, which are minor given full parameter coverage.

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 baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's parameter meanings, with a small added nuance that camera IDs are resolved by name if not an ID. No significant new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 a camera's configuration'), which clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from the many get_* camera tools among siblings. It lacks an explicit contrast to a sibling or update-family tool, so it doesn't reach the top tier.

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 frames the operation as mutating and notes changes apply immediately, giving clear context about its effect. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_camera_details or list_cameras, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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