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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces the destructive consequence by saying pairings can be 'permanently remove[d]'. It doesn't fully detail the effects of enable/disable, but the annotation plus the explicit permanent warning cover the main safety concern.

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 sentences: when-to-use/operation scope, routing caveat, and sibling exclusion. Dense but every sentence earns its place; it avoids restating the title or schema.

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 multi-operation tool with an output schema and rich parameter schema, the description provides enough to choose and invoke the tool: scope, operation families, disambiguation, and prerequisite list_devices. No missing information is needed beyond structured fields.

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 the schema already documents the 6 parameters and conditional requirements. The description adds high-level operation grouping and a list_devices routing hint, but no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema's descriptions already contain.

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 anchors the tool to 'signed-in ReMCP account or paired-computer membership' and enumerates every operation family (inspect, create pairing, ping/rename/enable/disable/remove) with explicit verbs. It also distinguishes itself from manage_system, so an agent can select it among siblings.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use condition and closes with an explicit exclusion ('Local runtime preferences belong to manage_system'). It directs the agent to call list_devices first when the target computer is ambiguous, providing clear decision guidance.

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