Delete device

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds beyond annotations by specifying the consequence: the device must re-authenticate to rejoin. This is valuable context that the annotations do not convey. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant words. The irreversibility note is concise and directly relevant to usage decisions.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the annotations provide the destructive hint. The description covers the key behavioral detail (re-authentication requirement) and the purpose. It does not mention return codes or error handling, but for a delete operation this is often implicit and not necessary for correct invocation. Overall it is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 with a detailed description of the deviceId parameter (including examples and clarifications about nodeId vs nodeKey). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('device'), and adds the qualifier 'permanently' which distinguishes it from temporary actions like expire or deauthorize. It also notes the irreversible nature, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description provides clear context that this is for permanent removal, and the irreversibility statement implies that it should not be used for temporary or reversible actions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., tailscale_expire_device) or state 'use this when...', so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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