update_mobility_device_network

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and exceeds it. It warns that writes are gated OFF by default pending live verification (issue #186), discloses the conflicting PUT semantics docs, and details the confirm=true guard, read-before/no-op detection, kill-switch, and read-after behaviors. This is exemplary for a dangerous mutation tool.

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 long but every sentence earns its place given the tool's danger profile. It is front-loaded with the core action, followed by critical safety warnings, then per-parameter details. Minor redundancy exists (confirm guard appears twice), but the structured line breaks keep it scannable.

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 9-parameter guarded mutation with known documentation conflicts and zero annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, scope exclusions, parameter semantics, safety gating, and required guards. An output schema exists so return-value details are covered by structured data, not the description.

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 fully compensates by documenting all 9 parameters: value constraints (dhcp_mode 'dhcp'/'none', IPv4 format, dhcp_lease_time >=0 with 0=infinite), provenance (workspace UUID from list_mobility_workspaces, device UUID from list_mobility_devices), and the confirm=true requirement. No parameter is left undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope pair: 'Update a UMR device's LAN / DHCP settings' and immediately flags it as a 'guarded write'. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling tools update_mobility_device_name and update_mobility_device_wireless, and the explicit exclusion of WAN/IPv6/InternetSource narrows the boundary further.

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 provides clear usage context: it documents partial-update behavior, states that at least one field is required, and names the source tools for the required identifiers (list_mobility_workspaces and list_mobility_devices). It explicitly lists what is not configurable here (WAN/IPv6/InternetSource), though it stops short of naming which sibling tool would handle those cases.

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