uninstall_adb_package

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable specifics: it removes data for user 0 and reports the device's own refusal reason when a package is absent. It does not cover reversibility or permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no wasted words. The parenthetical command and error behavior are efficiently packed into the second sentence.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: the data removal scope and error handling. It doesn't mention prerequisites like device connectivity or the need for confirmation, but annotations already carry the safety profile, so it's nearly complete.

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 all three parameters are fully documented. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no format hints for the package name or analysis_project_id), 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 (Uninstall) and resource (one package from the device), and explicitly names the underlying adb command. It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like install_adb_package or list_adb_packages.

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 explains what the tool does but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_adb_packages to verify before uninstalling, or install_adb_package for the reverse). Only the action itself implies usage.

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