remove_pin

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, idempotent, not read-only, and open-world. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints: the exact failure on linked devices, the immediate account impact, and how to undo the operation by calling set_pin.

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 front-loaded, short, and every sentence carries useful information: purpose, effect, device constraint, undo path, return value, and alternative tool. No sentence is wasted.

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 zero-parameter destructive tool, the description is complete: it covers the side effect, device limitation, undo path, return value, and the relevant alternative. Annotations cover the safety profile, and no output schema exists, so the stated return value is a useful addition.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description simply restates that there are no parameters, which matches the empty schema and adds no further parameter semantics.

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 and resource: removing the Registration Lock PIN from a Signal account. It also immediately distinguishes the effect from set_pin by noting that set_pin should be used to change the PIN instead of removing it.

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 gives explicit operational context: primary device only, linked-device failure mode, immediate real-account effect, and the alternative set_pin for changing rather than removing the PIN. This leaves little for the agent to infer.

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