update_device_lifecycle

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

The description adds the PUT method and the requirement for all fields, but annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The 'replace' wording could imply data overwrite, but annotations say non-destructive. No additional behavior (e.g., auth, limits) disclosed.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core operation and constraints. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Replace' and clearly states the method and requirement.

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?

While the description covers the operation type and field requirements, it lacks information about return values, error behavior, or prerequisites. Since there is no output schema, return details would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema sufficiently documents each parameter. The description adds no new parameter details beyond the existing schema descriptions, such as format or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool replaces asset lifecycle/warranty information, specifying it's a PUT operation that requires all fields. This distinguishes it from sibling 'patch_device_lifecycle' which does partial updates, and from 'get_device_lifecycle' which retrieves data.

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 indicates it's a full replacement (PUT) and that all required fields must be provided, which implies it should be used when a complete update is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the patch alternative or mention when not to use it.

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