select_network_device

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context that the write is confined to local selection state and opens no TCP connection, which reassures the agent about side-effect scope. It does not address the idempotentHint=false flag (re-selecting the same device) or what happens to a previously saved selection.

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?

A single compact sentence with the precondition front-loaded and the scope caveat trailing. No filler, though the two clauses could be split for easier scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the mutation profile. The gap is the undocumented scan_id/device_id pair and the missing statement about replacing a prior selection, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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 0% for both scan_id and device_id. The description hints that the device belongs to a scan list, but never says that device_id is the entry within that scan or what scan_id refers to, so the agent must infer the linkage entirely.

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 names a specific verb-plus-resource: saving the IP/MAC/NIC of a device chosen from a scan list. That is distinct from scanning (scan_network_devices) or reading the current choice (get_network_selection), though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives a precondition — the user must have explicitly picked a device from the scan list — which implies a prior scan. It does not name get_network_selection as the read-side alternative or state what to do when no scan exists, so routing is only implied.

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