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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: the UI side effect (returns to home screen if the app was open), the failure mode (not_installed), and the fact that the action is recorded in device_log as simulated. It doesn't say whether app data or state is lost, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The core action comes first, then the side effect, then the failure and logging behavior. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effect, the error case, and the logging behavior. The one thing an agent might still want is whether the removal is reversible and whether the app's data is discarded.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and session) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Remove an installed app from the phone.' That clearly separates it from install_app, list_installed_apps, and kill_app, which is the nearest sibling. It doesn't explicitly contrast with kill_app (stop vs. remove), so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'remove' rather than stated. The description never says when to prefer this over kill_app or when removal is inappropriate. The 'Fails with not_installed' line gives a precondition, which is useful, but it isn't framed as when-to-use guidance.

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