locate_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the operation (toggling the locate LED) and explains the enabled parameter's effect. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects beyond LED state, or any rate limits. Given the simple nature of the operation, the core behavior is disclosed, but richer context (like reversibility or long-running effects) is absent.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence states the action, followed by a per-parameter breakdown. No filler or redundant repetition of schema types. Every line provides practical information.

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?

The tool is a simple, single-action command with 4 parameters, all documented. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not required. The description covers the necessary inputs and where to obtain the key identifier. It lacks explicit error-case handling or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: host is described as console name, ID, or composite ID; site as name or ID; enabled as True/False toggling; device_id as REQUIRED and sourced from list_devices. Every parameter receives meaningful semantic explanation beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Toggle the locate LED on an adopted device.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_device or restart_device. The resource (locate LED) is unique and unambiguous.

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 explains how to obtain device_id from list_devices and provides format details for host and site, which is helpful usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusion conditions. Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose but not explicitly contrasted with similar tools.

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