remove_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the immediate loss of access, that the removed device is not notified, the irreversibility, and the failure mode for linked devices. This is comprehensive for a destructive action.

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 dense but every sentence adds necessary information. It opens with the core purpose, then logically covers conditions, effects, irreversibility, and alternatives. No fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all needed context: prerequisites, failure conditions, behavioral impact, and alternative tools. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to use it or how to use 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?

The schema's param description is minimal ('get from list_devices'), but the tool description adds critical semantic constraints: device_id must be ≥2 and cannot be the primary device. This goes beyond the schema and is essential for correct invocation.

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 ('unlink') and resource ('secondary device from your Signal account'), and immediately differentiates from siblings by specifying it's for secondary devices only. It clearly distinguishes from add_device, update_device, and list_devices by its irreversible nature.

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?

Explicitly states when it works (primary device only) and when it fails, and names alternatives: 'Use list_devices to find the device_id' and 'Use update_device to rename a device without removing it.' It also warns about the ID requirement (≥2) and the re-link path via add_device.

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