remove_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states the destructive nature (delete with subtree), the refusal condition when references exist, and the force option that overrides it. It also mentions that it lists the links, which is useful. This is transparent about the tool's side effects and guardrails.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds the conditional behavior. No filler or redundant words. Every part earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and the force flag well, but it is incomplete regarding the parameters (handle and device). Since there is an output schema, return values may not need explanation, but the parameter semantics gap makes the overall description insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly without more context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the force parameter (true deletes references) but does not clarify the 'handle' or 'device' parameters. The description mentions 'device' in prose but does not map it to the parameter explicitly, and 'handle' is entirely unexplained. This leaves two of three parameters ambiguous.

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 clearly states the action: delete a device together with its subtree. It is a specific verb+resource combination and is easily distinguished from siblings like remove_plan (which deletes plans) or remove_object (which deletes objects). No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies usage (delete a device) and provides a conditional behavior (refuses if references exist unless force=true). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool. It gives contextual usage hints but stops short of comparing with sibling tools or stating prerequisites.

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