set_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses two behaviors: that unspecified fields remain unchanged (partial update) and that plan labels update automatically. However, it does not clarify the semantics of passing null (e.g., does null clear a field?), likely requiring experimentation. It also omits any mention of permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond plan labels, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose, then adds the partial-update instruction and the plan-label behavior. No fluff, no repetition, and every clause adds information. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description leaves several gaps for an 8-parameter mutation. It does not specify how null values are interpreted for optional fields (clear vs. unchanged), does not explain what 'GKProperty' represents beyond the name, and omits any error or concurrency notes. For a tool with no annotations, this could be richer to ensure correct agent usage without extra trial-and-error.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meaning. It enumerates most fields: description, IntAddress, disable, serial number, zones, and properties, giving context for what each changes. It does not explain the identifiers 'handle' and 'device', but these are required and their purpose is inferable from the name. The description adds value over the raw schema by mapping int_address to 'IntAddress' and properties to 'GKProperty', though it does not detail types or formats beyond that.

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 verb 'Изменить' (change) and the resource 'устройства' (device), then enumerates the specific fields it modifies: description, IntAddress, disable, serial number, zones, and GKProperty. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_device, remove_device, and move_device, as it is squarely an update operation.

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?

It provides a clear usage rule: 'Задавайте только то, что меняете' (only specify what you change), which tells the agent how to perform partial updates. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the context is clear that this tool is for modifying existing devices, and the name set_device implies that. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing, so not a 5.

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