instructions_send_to_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target; it does not mention whether the send is asynchronous, whether it requires special permissions, what the response looks like, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no filler. The comparison to instructions_send earns its place by clarifying scope and usage.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only partial schema documentation. The description addresses the primary use case but neglects parameter semantics, behavioral outcomes, prerequisites, and expected results, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 43%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters like comments, parameters, responseTtlMinutes, and instructionTtlMinutes. It does not; it only emphasizes the guid parameter, leaving four parameters semantically unexplained.

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?

States a specific action ('Send an instruction'), a precise target ('single device identified by its Tachyon GUID'), and a distinguishing trait ('Simpler than instructions_send'). An agent can clearly identify what this tool does and how it differs from the main sibling.

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?

Explicitly names instructions_send as the alternative and gives the condition for choosing this tool: 'when you already know the device GUID.' This is clear when-to-use guidance with a direct sibling comparison.

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