device_action

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly warning that a restart will 'briefly disconnect all clients on that device.' This adds valuable behavioral context about the destructive nature of the action, which is not fully captured by the annotations alone (destructiveHint: true).

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a warning. It front-loads the purpose and gives critical behavioral information immediately. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, full annotations), the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, its current capability, and its side effects. No additional information is needed for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by reinforcing the effect of the 'action' parameter (e.g., 'RESTART reboots the device') and providing a practical warning. This goes beyond the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute an action on an adopted device.' It specifies the currently supported action (RESTART/reboot), providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'client_action' or 'execute_action' by focusing on device-level operations.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to restart a device) and includes a warning about the consequences (briefly disconnecting clients). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, such as using 'client_action' for client-level actions.

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