device_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a single device,' with no mention of side effects, validation behavior, idempotency, or what a successful response looks like. There is no contradiction, but the description is too thin to meaningfully disclose behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place: verb, scope, and resource are all present. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without information about the return value, error conditions, or post-create behavior. The schema documents required parameters, but the description does not explain the broader context of device creation, such as network/unit relationships or what happens on success. This is insufficient for a create operation.

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 already documents all six parameters and their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-level context. Per the baseline rule, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Create a single device.' The word 'single' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like device_bulk_create and device_range_create. It is not a tautology and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 phrase 'single device' gives clear context for when to use this tool: for creating exactly one device. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as device_bulk_create for multiple devices, but the contrast with sibling tool names is evident. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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