passgage_update_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing device' implies a mutation but does not explain whether updates merge or replace fields, what happens if the id does not exist, permission requirements, or the response format. This is a significant gap for an update 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and directly to the point. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it optimally concise.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, error scenarios, partial update behavior, or any domain-specific context about device properties. This is incomplete for a tool that accepts an arbitrary data object, requiring the agent to guess at expected fields and behavior.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (id and data), achieving 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the 'data' parameter is an open-ended object with additionalProperties: true, and the description does not clarify what fields are expected or how they map to device properties. The description adds no additional semantic value 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?

The description 'Update an existing device' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (device), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on other resources like users or approvals. However, it lacks any additional scope details (e.g., which properties can be updated), so it is clear but not exceptionally informative.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_device, delete_device, or the various other update_* tools. The description implies it should be used for updating existing device records but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate.

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