unifi_gen_removedevice

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'Unadopt' framing, which tells the agent the device is returned to the unadopted pool rather than deleted, but it omits the confirm/preview gate, irreversibility, and permission requirements.

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?

A single compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. The trailing URL provenance adds little for an agent but costs almost nothing.

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?

This is a destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, and the description says nothing about consequences, the confirm='YES' requirement, or the preview behavior. An agent must read the schema to learn that omitting confirm yields a preview rather than performing the removal.

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 67%: confirm and dry_run are well documented in the schema, while deviceId is documented only through its uuid format. The description contributes nothing about any parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate for a tool where the schema does most of the work.

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 ('Remove (Unadopt) Device') and the parenthetical clarifies the UniFi-specific semantics of what removal means. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling unifi_net_remove_device, which appears to perform the same operation in a different namespace.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus unifi_net_remove_device, unifi_gen_adoptdevice, or unifi_net_device_action. The only hint of a workflow (preview vs. apply) lives in the schema, not the description.

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