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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds material context beyond that: the effect ('Revokes the pairing'), the irreversibility, and the requirement of explicit user intent, which no annotation conveys.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble; the effect is stated before the precondition. The 'permanently remove ... only when the user explicitly requests that irreversible action' phrasing is somewhat redundant but still earns its place.

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?

Purpose, effect, and precondition are all present, and return values are covered by the existing output schema, so the description need not explain them. Combined with destructive/idempotency annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this safely.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, where the schema already states 'Paired computer id returned by list_devices'. The description's 'requires its device id' restates this without adding format or sourcing detail, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource ('permanently remove an existing paired computer') and scopes it with 'Revokes the pairing', which clearly separates it from sibling mutations like disable_device or delete_path. An agent can identify the operation 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?

It gives an explicit invocation condition ('only when the user explicitly requests that irreversible action'), which is strong guidance for a destructive tool. It does not name a softer alternative such as disable_device, so the when-to-use is clear but the alternative routing is left implicit.

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