デバイス登録を削除

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful context by specifying that the deletion includes the client-key, clarifying exactly what is destroyed. It does not discuss irreversibility or permissions, but the annotation already signals destructive behavior.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target while including the key detail about the client-key, making it appropriately concise.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description, schema, and annotation together provide enough information to invoke it correctly. It would benefit from noting irreversibility or return behavior, but given the low complexity and presence of destructiveHint, the current completeness is adequate.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of the single required 'name' parameter with the description '削除するデバイス名'. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, so it relies on the schema, which is already sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb '削除する' (delete) with a clear resource, '保存済みのデバイス' (saved device), and adds that the client-key is included. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_devices, pair_device, and discover_devices, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage for removing saved device registrations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools such as pair_device or list_devices are not referenced, so the routing is left to inference.

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