tailnet_device_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the required TAILSCALE_API_KEY, the dry-run-first workflow, the refusal gating on online/inventory state, and the force override. It stops short of saying whether removal is reversible or what happens to DNS/inventory records afterward, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the dry-run/refusal nuance trailing. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical credential note and the compound refusal clause make it slightly dense.

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 destructive 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, the dry-run/apply handshake, and the safety gate. What is missing is post-removal state (does it leave the fleet inventory, DNS records, or is it re-joinable), which an operator would want to know.

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%, so the schema already documents apply, force, planHash server-side one-shot semantics. The description reinforces the force behavior but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, so 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Remove a machine from the tailnet") plus the underlying API and credential, and the phrase "last step of taking a server out of service" cleanly separates it from siblings like tailnet_join and tailnet_devices.

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?

Gives clear situational context (final decommissioning step) and preconditions: an online device or one still in the enabled inventory is refused unless force is set. It does not name an alternative tool for just inspecting the device, but the when-to-use is unambiguous.

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