update_sensor

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update settings,' which implies a mutation but does not explain side effects, partial update behavior, validation requirements, permission needs, or what happens on failure. It also does not clarify whether missing settings fields are left unchanged or reset. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 compact and structured as a short lead sentence followed by parameter bullets. Every line adds useful information. The only minor issue is that the second bullet could be more specific about settings structure, but overall it is well organized and efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is a mutation with no annotations and no behavioral details. The description lacks critical context: which settings can be updated, whether the update is partial or full, whether there are prerequisites, and what the response indicates. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without seeking additional information.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well. It explains host formats ('console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)'), describes settings as 'key-value pairs,' and specifies that sensor_id is required and how to obtain it. However, it does not enumerate valid setting keys or expected value types, leaving some ambiguity for the settings object.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update settings for a Protect sensor.' It clearly identifies the object being modified (a Protect sensor) and the operation (update settings). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling update tools (e.g., update_camera, update_light), the resource name is enough to distinguish it from most siblings.

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 implicit guidance by explaining required parameters and telling the user to obtain sensor_id from list_sensors, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sensor or other update_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when updates are appropriate, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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