Modify a device

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with a write operation. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and explicitly requiring 'operator write opt-in and confirm:true.' It also warns that device-type-specific requirements are undefined, which helps set expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and endpoint, followed by the field list and side-effect warnings. The long but necessary list of body fields is structured as a comma-separated list, which is efficient. It includes a reference link for deeper details, and each sentence serves a purpose. It is slightly long but not bloated.

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 without an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and the open-world nature of the payload. However, it does not mention what the response will look like or how success is indicated, which might be needed for an agent to act on the result. The caveat that device-type-specific requirements are left to the API adds uncertainty that the agent must handle. Overall, adequate but with gaps in return expectations.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a list of allowed body fields (id, deviceType, etc.), which gives the agent a concrete idea of what can be included, but it does not explain the meaning or format of each field beyond what the schema already provides via the reference URL. It also clarifies that additional fields from create are allowed, but this is minor semantic value.

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 begins with 'Modify a device,' which is a clear verb+resource pairing, and it specifies the exact endpoint (POST /api/xm/1/devices). It also distinguishes itself from create/delete/get by explicitly stating it modifies and referencing 'Other fields from Create a device' – ensuring the agent understands it is not a creation action.

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 when to use this tool (to modify an existing device) by contrasting with create, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., create_a_device) or state when not to use it. It does mention the essential prerequisite (operator write opt-in and confirm:true) and acknowledges that device-type-specific requirements are left to the API, which gives some context. However, clear exclusions or explicit alternative routing are missing.

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