zont_delete_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that clear_data removes accumulated data and clear_access revokes other users' access, clarifying destructive side effects, but it omits irreversibility, required permissions/ownership, and whether the action can be undone.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact per-parameter glossary with no filler. Slightly terse on behavioral context, but every line 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?

For a 5-parameter, annotation-free mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need not be described), the definition covers purpose and all parameters adequately. It stops short of the permission/irreversibility context an agent should know before deleting a device.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every one of the five parameters is explained, including the conditional rule that transfer_username applies only when transfer=true. This adds genuine meaning beyond bare parameter names.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Удалить устройство из аккаунта пользователя ZONT') and immediately names the alternative behavior (transfer to another user), making its scope unambiguous. An agent can easily distinguish it from siblings like zont_add_device and zont_update_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?

It explains that transfer is an alternative to deletion, but never states when to choose deletion over the sibling tools zont_update_device or zont_add_device, nor any prerequisites or confirmation requirements for this destructive operation. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than explicitly guided.

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