Device Parents Clear

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 risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not describe the effect on the device or its topology after removal, nor does it flag that omitting parent_ids wipes every parent — that important destructive default appears only in the schema.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves very little information beyond the name.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. Still, for a destructive bulk-capable mutation, it is thin: it omits the all-parents default behavior and any post-removal consequences, which an agent arguably needs before invoking it.

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 the schema already explains hostname, the comma-separated parent_ids format, and the 'omit to remove every parent' default. The description contributes no additional meaning to either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('dependency parents from a device'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling device_parents_set by contrast of remove vs. set. It stops short of explicitly stating that distinction, so an agent must infer it from the sibling's name alone.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and does not name the obvious counterpart device_parents_set as the way to add or replace parents. The only routing signal is the verb itself, which the agent must interpret unaided.

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