remove_device

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the operational consequence (device immediately stops sending and receiving), the irreversibility of the unlink, and the exact failure mode ('This command doesn't work on linked devices') when signal-mcp was set up via signal-cli link.

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?

Dense but front-loaded — the destructive action and its consequence come first, then constraints, then return values, then the sibling alternative. Nearly every clause carries information, though the sentence count could be trimmed slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description still states the return payload ('status' of 'device removed' plus device_id), covers the precondition, the failure case, and the alternative tool. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds real constraint meaning beyond the schema: device_id must reference a linked device and must not be 1 (the primary). That is a validation rule an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 ('Permanently unlink a device from your Signal account') and immediately distinguishes itself from the three sibling device tools (list_devices, add_device, update_device). An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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 explicit when-to-use (permanent unlink), the alternative for the adjacent intent ('To only rename a device, use update_device'), and the recovery path (relink via add_device). It also names a hard precondition for calling it at all: signal-mcp must be the primary device.

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