Hide device

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond these by stating the hard requirement 'Requires confirm=True', flagging the confirmation gate, and reframing the operation as non-destructive 'hide' rather than a hard delete. 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?

Five words convey purpose, parameter preference, and a hard requirement, with purpose front-loaded. Zero filler; every clause earns its place and the structure is exemplary for a low-complexity destructive tool.

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 low-complexity 3-parameter destructive operation backed by an output schema and full annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what it does, the preferred parameter, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is obviously missing; irreversibility is implied by 'hide' and covered by 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Preferred: idx' reiterates what the schema already states ('preferred over name when known'). It adds the notion that confirm must be true, a requirement not explicit in the schema's default, which is mildly useful, but overall the description mostly repeats schema-provided meaning.

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 and resource: 'Hide device'. Notably, it reframes the tool name 'delete_device' as a hide operation, which is a materially different action and distinguishes it from destructive siblings like 'delete_user_variable' and 'restart_system'. Purpose is unmistakable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Preferred: idx' is parameter-preference advice, not usage-context guidance. There is no mention of when to favor this over rename_device, delete_user_variable, or other device tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'hide' framing implies context but nothing explicit.

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