removeDevice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is destructive (removes devices) but does not say whether removal is reversible, what happens to linked modules or connections, or how failure is handled (e.g., if a device name does not exist). An agent could destroy network state without knowing the side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The core action ('Remove') and target ('devices') appear first, and the workspace scope is included efficiently. There is no redundancy with the parameter 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?

This is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description leaves critical behavior unclear: what happens to linked modules or connections, whether the action is irreversible, and what occurs when a named device does not exist. Even though the single parameter is documented, the description omits the consequences that an agent needs to make safe call decisions.

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% because the deviceNames parameter is already explained as 'Array of existing device names to remove.' The description's 'one or more devices' merely paraphrases the schema's type and does not add substantive information about validation, format rules, or error behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 one or more devices' with the scope 'from the workspace.' This is unambiguous and differentiates the tool from the sibling 'removeLink,' which removes links rather than devices, so an agent can identify the right operation without needing to open 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like removeLink, addDevice, or renameDevice. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which removeDevice is preferred, so an agent is left to infer the use case from the function name alone.

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