sophos_update_mobile_device

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

The description explicitly discloses a key behavioral trait: it is a full PUT replacement, so all required fields must be supplied. This goes beyond what the schema alone indicates. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, and this sufficiently alerts the agent to the tool's non-partial nature.

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?

Two sentences: first states the purpose, second adds the critical behavioral note. No filler words. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded. Highly efficient.

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?

With 10 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the PUT nature but does not cover what the return value looks like or potential effects (e.g., does it return the updated device?). This leaves some gaps for an agent needing to know the response format.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter is already described in the schema. The description adds a high-level list ('name, ownership type, group assignment, etc.') but does not provide additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('mobile device'), and a specific behavioral characteristic ('full PUT replacement of the device record'). It distinguishes from siblings like create, delete, or get mobile device by emphasizing the replacement semantics.

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 implies usage via 'full PUT replacement' and requiring all required fields, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_mobile_device_group). No when-not or guidance on prerequisites is provided.

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