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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral detail that offline selections cause command failures, but it does not explain the destructiveHint=true annotation or clarify that omitting device_id clears the chat 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?

The description is two concise sentences with the primary selection purpose front-loaded. The offline warning is a compact and relevant second sentence, and there is no wasted text.

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?

For a single-parameter selection tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety traits, the description is nearly complete. It still leaves the destructive implication of selection implicit, but the schema and annotations provide enough context for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already explains that device_id is an own or approved shared computer identifier returned by list_computers and that omitting it clears the chat selection. The description adds little beyond that structured parameter documentation, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: choosing an own or shared computer for this chat, with scope covering offline computers. The action is clearly distinct from listing tools such as list_computers, and an agent can understand what selection means without opening the schema.

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 implies usage by saying the computer must be listed and by warning that commands to an offline selection fail. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_computers or view_select_computer, nor does it state prerequisites such as listing computers first.

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