unadopt_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 indicates a destructive/unadoption action but does not reveal consequences such as whether the device is fully removed, whether it becomes unmanaged, whether the action is reversible, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter clarifications, and ending with an example. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more scannable with bullet points.

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?

Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema details, the description omits important contextual information such as preconditions (device must be in the site), effects on device lifecycle, and return value. An agent would not know whether the operation succeeds silently or returns a status. The example is helpful but not sufficient for full contextual completeness.

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 does explain each parameter: host as console name/ID/composite ID, site as name/ID, and device_id as unique identifier. It also provides a concrete example. This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it lacks details about how to obtain device_id or format constraints beyond the MAC:numericId hint for host.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Unadopt (remove) a device from a site.' It distinguishes this from sibling adopt_device by using the 'unadopt' term and explicitly defining it as removal. However, it could be more explicit about the operational difference between 'unadopted' and 'removed' states.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only describes what the tool does, not when an agent should invoke it or when it should not.

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