update_device_property

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds the requirement for write permission, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like whether an existing property is overwritten or if creation fails under certain conditions. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is concise and contains no wasted words, though it could potentially be expanded with minimal effort to include more context without becoming verbose.

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 write operation with three well-documented parameters and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is reasonably complete. It doesn't describe return values or edge cases, but given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation, this is acceptable.

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%, so all three parameters (device_id, property_name, property_value) have basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 or create') and the resource ('device/resource property'), distinguishing it from read-only siblings like get_device_property. However, 'resource property' is slightly ambiguous and could be more specific about what constitutes a property.

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 notes that write permission is required but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and purpose.

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