Modify a device name

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint true, readOnly false), the description adds that the operation may notify recipients or change tenant data, and requires operator opt-in. This is valuable behavioral context and does not contradict 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 concise, front-loading the action and endpoint, then listing fields and important caveats. It packs necessary information without being verbose, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

It covers the action, endpoint, required fields, permission requirements, side effects, and includes a reference link. It lacks error-handling details, but given no output schema and the schema already specifying confirm:true, it is reasonably complete.

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 only requires 'id' and allows additional properties, but the description explicitly lists the expected body fields (id, deviceType, name, description, privileged), adding semantic value beyond the schema's generic body description.

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 (modify) and resource (device name), includes the HTTP endpoint, and lists the body fields, distinguishing it from create/delete device name siblings. It is specific and actionable, not a tautology.

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 prerequisites (operator write opt-in, confirm:true) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create or delete device name. The context is implicit from the verb 'modify', but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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