Remove device

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by spelling out the blast radius (key stops working at every exit, slot is freed), irreversibility ("can't be undone; the device would have to be set up again"), and the auth requirement (admin-scope token). That is exactly the added context the annotation bar leaves room for.

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?

Four short sentences: purpose and effect first, then irreversibility, then the confirmation requirement, then auth. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 outcome, the irreversibility, the human-confirmation safety step, and the token scope. An agent has everything needed to decide and to call it correctly.

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 schema itself explains name/partial-name/ID matching and points at list_devices, so the description is not obliged to re-document it. "Naming the device" reinforces the confirmation step but adds no new resolution semantics, so this sits at the baseline.

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 and resource ("Permanently remove a device from the account") plus the concrete effect (VPN key stops working at every exit, slot freed). That wording implicitly separates it from the reversible siblings (disconnect_device, move_device), but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 real preconditions: confirm with the user first and name the device, and an admin-scope token is required. What is missing is an explicit exclusion or alternative — nothing tells the agent to use disconnect_device instead when the intent is temporary.

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