Deauthorize device

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

The annotations already mark the action destructive and non-read-only; the description adds that access is removed immediately and that the device can reconnect only after being re-authorized. This clearly communicates the consequence and recovery path, going beyond the annotation flags.

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-load the action and consequence, with no filler or repetition of the title. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is complete: it states the effect, the immediacy, and the recovery condition. No missing information prevents an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter, including an example and a caution that the nodeKey is not accepted. The tool description adds no parameter detail, so the schema carries the full burden; 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 opens with the verb 'Deauthorize' and the resource 'device,' and specifies the immediate effect of removing tailnet access. It is clearly a revocation action and distinguishable from siblings like tailscale_authorize_device, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 the tool is for revoking a single device's tailnet access, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose it over related siblings such as tailscale_expire_device, tailscale_set_devices_authorized, or tailscale_delete_device. The re-authorization note hints at reversibility but does not provide selection criteria.

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