update_device_eventsource

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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations by explicitly noting that the operation 'requires write permission.' It also clarifies that the update is specifically about toggling alerting, which is more specific than the generic 'Update' verb. No contradiction with the provided 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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the purpose. There is no redundant or filler content; every phrase contributes value.

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 update operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the necessary context: what the tool does, its permission requirement, and its intended use. It could mention effects on existing alerting state, but the schema and tool scope make that omission minor.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, including the key boolean disable_alerting. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate 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 clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('device-level EventSource association'), and the specific purpose ('enable or disable alerting for an EventSource on a specific device'). This distinguishes it from related tools like update_eventsource, which operates at the EventSource level rather than the device-association level.

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 explicitly says 'Use to enable or disable alerting for an EventSource on a specific device,' giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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