Remove device

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful specifics: the VPN key stops working at every exit, the slot is freed, the action cannot be undone, and the device must be set up again. It also adds confirmation and auth requirements not present in annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences: the operation and its effects, irreversibility, and required user confirmation/auth. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: consequences, irreversibility, confirmation, and auth scope. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call it 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?

The schema already documents the device parameter thoroughly (name, unique part, ID, case-insensitivity, source via list_devices), so the description does not need to repeat it. The description's 'naming the device' note aligns with the parameter but adds no new semantic detail.

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 ('permanently remove') and resource ('device from the account'), and clarifies it is a destructive operation distinct from siblings like disconnect_device or update_device. The consequence ('VPN key stops working... slot freed') reinforces what the tool uniquely 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?

Explicitly instructs to confirm with the user first and to name the device, and notes the admin-scope token requirement. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to apply it to permanent removal scenarios.

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