Rotate device

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining non-idempotence ('Each call moves again, so it isn't idempotent') and the token requirement, which is beyond annotation coverage. It references sibling behavior ('Same checks and waiting as move_device') but does not detail those checks, which is a minor gap.

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 three concise sentences with the core scoping information ('Move a device once to the next location') front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: behavior, non-idempotence, alternative, and auth requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage distinction, behavioral caveats, and auth needs. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional documentation, especially given the high schema coverage.

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%, and the schema already fully documents the 'device' parameter (name, unique part, ID, case-insensitive). The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 'Move a device once to the next location in the list, so its traffic exits from somewhere new,' which is a specific verb, resource, and behavioral scope. It clearly differentiates from siblings like move_device (which likely moves to a specified location) and start_rotation (repeated automatic moves) by explicitly contrasting them.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Same checks and waiting as move_device' and 'For repeated automatic moves use start_rotation instead.' It also notes the authentication requirement ('Needs a control-scope token'), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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