remove_module

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses a power-cycling side effect on the device and that the returned ports are those that disappeared, which the annotations and schema do not say.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the side effect and return info trailing. Efficient and free of filler, though 'like add_module' is a slightly indirect way to describe the power-cycle behavior.

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?

With annotations covering the destructive profile and an output schema existing (so return values need not be explained), the description supplies the key missing hazard (power cycling) and the return semantics. It omits any prerequisite or error condition (e.g., invalid slot), a minor gap for a two-parameter tool.

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% and both parameters (device, slot) are fully documented in the schema with their meaning. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove the module in a slot') with a clear scope tied to a slot path, and names add_module as its counterpart operation. It is readily distinguishable from other remove_* siblings (remove_device, remove_note) by naming the module-in-slot target, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate those siblings.

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 phrase 'like add_module' implicitly frames it as the inverse of add_module, which hints at when to use it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or statement of prerequisites (e.g., slot must hold a module). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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