Create a device

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by stating the API method, the requirement for operator write opt-in, and the side effects that this mutation may notify recipients or change tenant data. Combined with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the agent gets a clear and accurate picture of the operation's impact.

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 dense but not bloated: it front-loads the core action and endpoint, states the key constraint about mobile push devices, lists the body fields, and points to the reference. The field list is long but earns its place given the open body schema and lack of detailed parameter documentation.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a generic body schema, the description provides necessary context: endpoint, prerequisites, side effects, field names, and a documentation reference. It could add more detail about response behavior or device-type-specific requirements, but the reference and explicit caveats make it reasonably complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, but for the body parameter the schema is a generic recursive open-world type. The description compensates by enumerating the relevant body field names and noting that device-type-specific fields are conditional and nested structures remain open. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's 'Complete API JSON payload' text.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a device') and backs it with the exact REST endpoint. It also clarifies scope by noting device-type-specific fields and the mobile push device exception, which helps distinguish this create operation from get, modify, and delete device siblings.

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 includes an explicit use-vs-alternative cue: mobile push devices cannot be created via REST and existing push devices can be modified. It also states a prerequisite (operator write opt-in and confirm:true). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like modify_a_device, but the conditional guidance is sufficient for correct routing.

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