Change a device

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the crucial non-obvious trait that changes are volatile until save_config is called. It does not, however, note that blocking access can cut a device off the network or confirm idempotency, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences: capabilities first, then the persistence caveat. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation surface and the key side-effect (reboot discards unsaved changes), which is exactly what an agent needs before invoking. Annotations carry the safety profile.

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 each parameter is already documented (including enums for access and the 0-7 priority range), so the baseline is 3. The description's phrasing largely restates those parameter descriptions rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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 resource plus the full set of mutable attributes (rename, access, policy, schedule, priority). An agent can immediately tell this apart from read-oriented siblings like get_device or list_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?

Gives a clear condition for how results behave (changes apply immediately, need save_config to persist) and points to list_policies as the source for policy names. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the context is unambiguous for a manage-device operation.

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