Put clear device token

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive mutation with openWorld behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the endpoint is public and tied to push relay callbacks. However, it does not explain what clearing the token does to the device, whether it is idempotent, or what authorization is required, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded. Every phrase adds information: the action, the resource, the public nature, and the callback context.

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 mutation tool with four parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema. The description covers purpose and a hint of context but omits required authorization, expected effects of clearing a token, parameter usage, and error behavior. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently without inspecting the raw schema.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only implies that a device token is associated with a device, giving a weak hint that `device_id` is the required identifier, but it says nothing about `form`, `params`, or `json_body`. This is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Clear a device push token.' The parenthetical adds scope ('public, used by push relay callbacks'), which helps distinguish this from the sibling `vaultwarden_put_device_token` that sets a token. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not name alternatives such as `vaultwarden_put_device_token` or `vaultwarden_post_clear_device_token`. The note that it is 'used by push relay callbacks' hints at a scenario but does not tell an agent how to choose this tool over its siblings.

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