Remove (unadopt) device

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not explain the confirm/preview gate, that dry_run exists, or what happens to the device's configuration and history after removal.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste — well structured, though the brevity crosses into under-specification for a destructive operation.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and a required confirm token plus dry_run preview mode, the description explains almost none of the workflow. An agent would not know from the description 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 documented in the schema, but deviceId carries no description, and the tool description does nothing to clarify what identifier form is expected (MAC, ID, etc.). The description adds no parameter meaning at all.

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 ("Removes an adopted device") and the title adds the crucial framing "unadopt", which separates it from device_action or reboot_device. However, the description body itself offers no explicit differentiation from the many sibling device tools.

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 versus unifi_net_device_action, unifi_gen_removedevice, or unifi_net_adopt_devices, and no mention of prerequisites such as the device needing to be offline or unadopted first. The agent must infer everything from the verb.

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