Release Remote Device

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond by detailing exactly what is lost ('apps installed, files pushed, and any other changes') and the consequences of reallocation ('may take time and could return a different physical unit'). This enriches the annotation without contradicting it.

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 three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then delivering critical behavioral warnings. There is no fluff; every sentence contributes essential information for correct usage.

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 remote-device action, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, the destructive side effects, and the optimal timing. It could mention error cases (e.g., releasing an unallocated device) but this is a minor omission given the annotations and schema already cover the basic contract. The lack of an output schema means return value explanation is unnecessary.

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% and the parameter 'device' is described as 'The device identifier to release back to the remote fleet'. The tool description adds the contextual requirement that the device must be previously reserved, but this is implicit rather than explicitly tied to the parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 ('Release'), a precise resource ('a device previously reserved with mobile_allocate_remote_device'), and the outcome ('back to the remote cloud fleet so it becomes available to others'). It explicitly names the complementary sibling tool, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Only release once the whole task is finished' and advises against premature release ('keep holding it rather than releasing and reallocating'). It also notes that reallocation may be slow and yield a different physical unit, giving the agent a clear decision rule.

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