Release Remote Device

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by enumerating exactly what is lost (installed apps, pushed files, session changes) and warning that a later allocation may be slow and return a different physical unit. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or return behavior, but the added state-loss and reallocation context is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and sibling link, then consequences and the workflow rule. Four sentences, all earning their place, though the final sentence could be trimmed slightly.

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 single-parameter release tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, consequences, reallocation caveats, and the timing rule an agent needs to avoid premature release. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the device identifier. The description adds only indirect meaning by tying the identifier to a previously allocated reservation; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 ('release') and resource ('a device previously reserved') and explicitly names the counterpart tool mobile_allocate_remote_device, so the agent can distinguish this from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('once the whole task is finished') and when-not ('if there is more work to do on the same device shortly, keep holding it'), plus the alternative action to take in that case. Nothing is left to inference.

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