remove_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real consequences: it unregisters the device, drops associated configuration, and terminates active connections. It stops short of stating irreversibility or required permissions, but the destructive side effects are clearly surfaced.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the action and its consequences before the parameter list, and every sentence carries information. The Parameters block largely restates the schema and costs a little space, though the Returns section compensates since no output schema exists.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is removed, what breaks (active connections), and what comes back (removal status). Missing only irreversibility and authorization context, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 has 100% description coverage and documents device_id identically, so the description's parameter section adds no meaning beyond it. Single-parameter baseline with full coverage puts this at 3.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Remove a FortiGate device") and the second sentence clarifies the scope as unregistering from the MCP server rather than deleting the appliance. This distinguishes it from add_device and list_devices, though the phrase "removing all associated configuration" stays slightly ambiguous about whether the device's own config or only the server-side record is affected.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the inverse of add_device and is used when a device should no longer be managed. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning about when not to call it.

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