update_device_fingerprint

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

The description discloses the merge strategy (top-level overwrite, capabilities subdict updates one level deep, non-recursive), persistence to DB, updated_at bump, last_seen preservation, and that unknown top-level keys are dropped. This adds significant detail beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true).

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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then details merge behavior in a logical order. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or unclear wording.

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 description is thorough for a complex tool with nested objects and merge semantics, covering behavior, prerequisites, and side effects. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., success message or updated device status), which is a minor gap given no output schema.

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 schema already has 100% description coverage, and the description adds critical behavioral details: top-level keys overwrite last-write-wins, capabilities subdict updates are not recursive, and unknown top-level keys are dropped. This clarifies the semantics of the fingerprint parameter beyond the schema.

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 merges fingerprint data (kernel, OS, package digest, capabilities) into a device's sitemap row. It specifies the merge behavior for top-level keys and capabilities subdict, and distinguishes from the sibling update_device_fingerprint_preview by implying this is the actual update.

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 provides usage context: 'Run discover_and_map first to populate the device' and 'See the configure_host_fingerprint prompt for the conversational workflow.' It tells when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for similar tasks.

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