device_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a device' signals a mutation but says nothing about partial vs full replacement, side effects, destructive potential, permission requirements, or response behavior, leaving significant ambiguity for a write operation.

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 only three words long, essentially echoing the tool name. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise; a tool with six parameters and a nested object needs at least a sentence outlining scope, fields affected, or operational context.

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 six parameters, a nested 'info' object, no output schema, and no annotations, a three-word description is completely inadequate. The agent lacks context about preconditions, side effects, return values, or relationships to sibling device tools, making correct and safe invocation very difficult.

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 input schema already documents each parameter, earning a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning and does not clarify how the parameters interact, such as whether each field is patched independently or the entire device object is replaced.

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?

Description states the action (update) and the resource (device), so it is minimally informative. However, it adds no detail about which properties can be modified or how it differs from sibling device operations such as device_create or device_delete, making it a vague statement of purpose that mostly restates the tool name.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and parameter names.

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