Release Remote Device

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical details: state loss (apps, files, changes), reallocation delays, and the possibility of a different physical unit. It also warns about the cost of releasing prematurely. This substantially enhances transparency beyond the structured annotations, making the operation's consequences clear.

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?

Concise, efficient three-sentence description. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by critical consequences, then usage guidance. No redundant information; every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter tool with destructive side effects and a clear counterpart, the description covers purpose, usage timing, consequences, and the relationship to allocation. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly, given the annotations.

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 schema already provides a description for the 'device' parameter (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that the device must have been 'previously reserved with mobile_allocate_remote_device', which clarifies the expected source of the identifier. This adds value beyond the schema, justifying a 4.

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 clearly states the action ('Release'), the resource ('a device previously reserved with mobile_allocate_remote_device'), and the outcome ('back to the remote cloud fleet so it becomes available to others'). It directly distinguishes from the sibling mobile_allocate_remote_device by referencing it explicitly, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Only release once the whole task is finished' and when not to: 'if there is more work to do on the same device shortly, keep holding it rather than releasing and reallocating.' This goes beyond typical usage hints and gives clear conditions, making it easy for an agent to decide correctly.

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