upgrade_device

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals that the operation is mutating, persists once applied, causes a reboot, and only proceeds when an upgrade is available. This gives the agent a solid mental model of the tool's side effects and constraints.

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: a crisp one-sentence purpose, a concise mutation warning with sibling differentiation, and a clear Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information appears early.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, side effects, preconditions, and alternatives. No output schema exists, but the description's job is to support correct invocation, and it does so completely.

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 fully documents mac, site, and device. The description repeats the same parameter details without adding new semantics, which keeps it at the baseline rather than higher.

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 opening sentence names the specific operation and resource: 'Upgrade a device's firmware to the latest available version.' It explicitly contrasts with restart_device and provision_device, making the tool's identity and scope unambiguous even among many siblings.

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 clearly explains when this tool is the right choice: when the goal is changing running firmware, not a plain reboot or config re-push. It also states a precondition: 'Only proceeds when an upgrade is available on the console,' which helps the agent decide whether invocation will succeed.

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