Update sensor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutation tool. It does not state whether unspecified fields are preserved (patch semantics) or reset, whether the change is reversible, whether certain fields are immutable per sensor type, or what errors arise from out-of-range/out-of-bounds values — all of which are the salient risks here.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the id-discovery hint trailing. The field enumeration overlaps what the schema already lists, which is the only wasted space.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and where-to-get-ids but omits update semantics (partial vs. full), post-update behavior, and validation failure modes. Adequate to invoke, not adequate to invoke confidently.

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?

At 63% schema description coverage the schema already documents x, y, name, angle, range, and the type enum; the description's phrase 'mounting position' only loosely maps to x/y and adds no unit or constraint detail. Coverage is near the baseline threshold, so a 3 reflects marginal added value rather than compensation.

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?

Specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('a sensor') and an enumerated set of mutable fields, which separates it from add_sensor/remove_sensor by implication. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clause 'Use list_sensors to find ids' gives one concrete prerequisite for obtaining the required id, which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about when to prefer this over remove_sensor+add_sensor, or what happens for sensors that don't support a field (e.g. range on a button).

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