upgrade_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that a firmware upgrade is triggered, but does not disclose possible side effects (e.g., device reboot, downtime), permission requirements, or result details. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action, the second describes parameters. No wasted words, and the most important parameter (device_id) is highlighted as REQUIRED. Excellent density.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema that is not described, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: action, parameter meanings, and source for the required ID. Missing only side-effect warnings, which prevents a 5.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining exactly what each parameter means: host formats, site name/ID, and the device_id source (list_devices). This goes beyond the bare schema and gives an agent all necessary parameter-level knowledge.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('firmware upgrade on an adopted device'), clearly distinguishing it from related tools like adopt_device or restart_device. The action is 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (upgrading firmware) and explicitly instructs how to obtain the required device_id from list_devices. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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