Allocate Remote Device

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context: the device is a shared and billed resource, releasing wipes state, and allocation may block. It also warns against releasing between steps. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and is consistent with them.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core purpose, usage constraints, prerequisites, filtering advice, and release instructions. It is front-loaded with the essential action and maintains a logical flow without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, lifecycle requirements, no output schema), the description covers the critical context: reservation semantics, billing, authentication, filtering, and release. It doesn't specify the exact format of the returned device identifier, but that is implied and not essential for correct invocation. Overall it is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions that users should list available names/versions before filtering, which reinforces the name and version parameters, but it doesn't add new semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents (prefixes, comparison operators, wait semantics). No significant compensation needed.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Reserve'), a specific resource ('physical device from the remote cloud fleet'), and a clear outcome ('returning a device identifier'). It also explicitly contrasts with local devices and names the sibling tools that list and release remote devices, making differentiation immediate.

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 explicit when-to-use ('only call this after the user has explicitly asked to use a remote/cloud device'), when-not-to-use ('never speculatively or as a fallback'), and names alternatives like mobile_list_remote_devices and mobile_release_remote_device. It also states a prerequisite (mobile_login_to_cloud_provider) and error-recovery behavior.

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