delete_device

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

The destructive annotation already flags the risk, and the description adds the plan/dry-run mode and exact-target qualifier. However, it does not disclose that an actual delete requires a prior dry run, valid confirmationToken, and expectedStateVersion; the two-phase behavior is left to the schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase ('Plan or delete', 'exact loaded device', chain types) earns its place.

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 rich schema covers trackId/deviceId resolution and the plan/confirm parameters, and annotations cover the destructive nature, so the short description is not fatal. Still, a tool with six parameters and no output schema could state the required dry-run-then-confirm sequence more directly.

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 each parameter has a detailed explanation, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond hinting at the dryRun/delete dichotomy that the schema already documents.

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 the specific action ('Plan or delete') on a specific resource ('one exact loaded device') and constrains scope to 'ordinary, Return, Main, or rack chain.' This is enough to tell it apart from sibling delete/move tools such as delete_session_object or move_device.

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 gives useful scope context (loaded device, specific chain types) but never says when to prefer this over alternatives like set_device_active or move_device, nor when a dry-run plan should be used instead of a direct delete. Usage guidance is therefore only implied.

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