update_device_config

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description merely repeats 'Update', adding no behavioral context (e.g., whether it restarts services or requires downtime). With annotations present, the description does not provide additional 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?

The description is a single sentence of only 5 words, conveying the core action efficiently. No superfluous text; every word is essential. While minimal, it is appropriately concise for a tool with detailed schema.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested config objects, multiple options like backup and validation) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, sequencing, or effects of parameters like 'backup_before_change' or 'validate_only'. The schema partially compensates, but the description should provide workflow context.

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 describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 specifies the action ('Update configuration') and the resource ('an existing device'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_device_fingerprint' which update different aspects. The verb and resource are precise and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'deploy_infrastructure' or 'install_service' for broader changes). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for invocation.

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