Remove a Module from a Device

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

Although annotations already mark the tool as destructive, the description adds important behavioral detail beyond them: the device is power-cycled and cables on the module's ports are removed. It also supplies a confirmation script, which is valuable for a destructive operation.

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 with the action and side effects, then gives a critical warning and one concise example. Every sentence earns its place and nothing 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?

Given an output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and destructive annotations, the description supplies the remaining needed context: side effects, confirmation requirement, and an example. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and both required parameters are documented there. The description repeats "slot" in the confirmation prompt but adds no syntax, constraints, or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Remove the module in a slot") and immediately clarifies scope. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name the inverse sibling add_module_to_device or otherwise differentiate among module-related operations.

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 provides a concrete usage example and a mandatory user-confirmation step, giving the agent clear operational context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus add_module_to_device or other module tools, so it lacks full alternative-selection guidance.

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