eliminar_dispositivo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly mentions the side effect of automatically removing all connected cables, which is a destructive side effect that an agent must know. It does not mention what happens if the device is not found or if deletion is irreversible, but for a simple delete operation, the main behavioral trait is disclosed adequately.

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 precisely two sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the core action, and the second adds a critical side effect. Every word is purposeful, and the most important information is front-loaded. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 simple deletion tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and side effect. It doesn't detail error handling or return values, but given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema, this is sufficient. It could mention irreversibility explicitly, but that is implied by 'eliminar'.

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 has zero parameter descriptions, so the phrase 'por su nombre' in the description clarifies that the single parameter 'nombre' is the device's name used to locate and delete it. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Nombre' title. Although it doesn't specify exact name format or case sensitivity, it fully explains the parameter's role in the operation.

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 states a specific verb (Elimina = deletes), the resource (un dispositivo del canvas de Packet Tracer), and the identifying attribute (por su nombre). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like eliminar_conexion (delete connection) and limpiar_topologia (clear entire topology), which are different operations. No ambiguity.

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 when to use it: when you need to remove a device and its connected cables. It explicitly states the cascading effect on cables, which signals to the agent that this is the tool for device removal (as opposed to eliminar_conexion for just a cable). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it, but the purpose is so clear that the usage context is well understood.

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