manage_device

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by specifying the naming convention, API version, and prerequisite calls. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral context beyond them.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently provides naming conventions, role determination, and prerequisite steps. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, naming convention, role determination, prerequisite calls, and API choice. Given no output schema, it adequately informs the agent about how to use the tool, though it could mention possible failure scenarios.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description enhances the name parameter by explaining the naming convention and how to determine role from features, adding value beyond the schema's description.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update properties of an adopted device — primarily for renaming' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on device renaming and naming conventions, and mentions using the classic API vs integration API.

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?

Explicitly guides usage: when to rename, naming convention {role}-{location}, how to derive role from features, and prerequisite to call list_devices or get_device first. Also identifies that this tool uses the classic Network Application REST API, not the integration API.

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