Move device

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by explaining what idempotency means in practice ('moving to where it already is does nothing'), how long the call blocks (10–30 s), that it verifies against the new exit server, and that it reports failure plainly. It also discloses the auth requirement (control-scope token) and the agent/remote-control prerequisite, which annotations do not cover.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and wait behavior, then idempotency, then preconditions, then the routing hint. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers latency, verification, failure reporting, idempotency, preconditions, and auth scope — everything an agent needs to call it safely and set expectations. Nothing material is left to inference.

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% and both parameters are richly documented (name/partial-name/ID, case-insensitivity, location names vs srv- IDs, cross-references to list_devices and list_locations). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and object ('Move a device's traffic to exit from a chosen location') and explicitly names the sibling it is not: 'To just go somewhere different, use rotate_device.' An agent can distinguish this from rotate_device, reconnect_device, or update_device without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative (rotate_device) and the condition that selects it, plus an explicit exclusion: only machines running the Portveil agent with remote control on, and phones using the WireGuard app must be switched on the device itself. Preconditions and the fallback path are both stated.

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