Replace shared device-type library (DESTRUCTIVE)

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

It clearly discloses the destructive semantics: types absent from catalogue are removed, this is a whole-library write, concurrent changes are protected by revision checking, and an editor/owner role is required. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only flag destructiveHint and readOnlyHint.

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 three focused sentences with the most important information front-loaded: destructive, whole-library write, not a merge. Every sentence contributes either behavioral context, workflow guidance, or role requirements.

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 destructive write tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation's effect, the required read-before-write sequence, concurrency behavior, and authorization requirements. An agent has enough context to call it safely and 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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds helpful workflow context by tying revision to get_org_catalog, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema definitions for catalogue, revision, and org.

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 opens with 'Replace an organisation's shared device-type library with the given array', a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes this as a destructive whole-library write rather than a merge, so it cannot be confused with read or update tools.

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 a clear workflow: read the current library with get_org_catalog, add your changes, and send back the revision. It also states the write fails rather than overwriting concurrent changes and requires an editor/owner role, but it does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use cases beyond noting it is not a merge.

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