Update device

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that turning remote control off stops move, rotate, reconnect, and disconnect until turned back on. It also discloses partial-update semantics ('Change only what's given') and the admin-scope requirement, adding meaningful operational context that annotations do not provide.

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 four sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the most important behavioral caveat, idempotency reassurance, and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with rich annotations and a fully documented input schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: required device identification, optional fields, side effects, repeatability, and access level. No return schema exists, but none is necessary for this kind of update operation.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying partial-update behavior for the optional parameters and explaining the real-world effect of remote_control=false. This enriches the bare schema definitions without repeating them.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Rename a device and/or turn remote control on or off for it.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_device, move_device, and disconnect_device, which have different actions even though they also target devices.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to rename a device or toggle remote control. It also states the admin-token requirement and notes the operation is safe to repeat. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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