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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals side effects (stops new authenticated input, removes channel from device list) and clarifies that stored measurements follow retention policy. It also states what it does not do (uninstall). It does not mention authorization requirements or error conditions, but the key behaviors are covered, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by critical clarifications. Every sentence adds value, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 the simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the operation, scope, side effects, limitations, and directs to alternatives. An agent can confidently invoke this tool correctly without further context.

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 are already documented in the schema (id as UUID, collector as enum). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details, dependencies, or edge cases. Thus, per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is justified.

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 (revokes and removes) on a specific resource (collector channel from a device), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_device_input and list_device_inputs. It also clarifies the scope ('only a channel of the same owner') and what it does not do, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage context: it works even for a deleted device, and it clearly directs the agent to an alternative command (`uninstall.remove`) when the goal is to uninstall or stop the collector. This is a strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guide.

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