update_device_tag

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

The description suggests partial-update behavior through 'tag: fields to update', which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose side effects, whether unspecified tag fields are preserved or overwritten, required permissions, or any mutation caveats.

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 short lines: the action is front-loaded, and each parameter gets one concise line. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail for a four-parameter tool.

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 description covers the core purpose and all parameter semantics, and an output schema exists to document return values. It is incomplete in usage guidance and mutation transparency, leaving an agent to infer when to update rather than create/delete and what happens to existing tag fields.

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 carry the parameter semantics, and it does for all four required params: host formats, site name/ID, tag_id's role, and tag contents examples. The full set of allowed tag fields is left unspecified, but the schema itself leaves the object open via additionalProperties.

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 opening line states a specific action ('Update') and a specific resource ('device tag') with the criterion 'by ID', which clearly distinguishes it from create_device_tag, delete_device_tag, and list_device_tags. No schema inspection is needed to understand what this tool does.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus create_device_tag, delete_device_tag, or list_device_tags. The only signal is the verb 'update' and the 'by ID' phrasing, which implies an existing tag but never states the condition or names alternatives.

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