device_rm

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is destructive and gated behind confirm=true, plus a path restriction, but says nothing about irreversibility (no trash/undo), permission requirements, whether directories are rejected, or what happens on failure.

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?

Two short sentences: the operation and scope come first, the confirm precondition second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: resource, location restriction, and the safety gate. The main omission is an explicit statement that deletion is permanent/not recoverable, which matters for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the confirm=true requirement and the /sdcard restriction on remote_path. The description only restates the confirm rule, adding no format examples or edge-case guidance beyond structured fields; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (delete), resource (a file), and location (phone's shared storage, /sdcard only), which clearly separates it from sibling device_* tools like device_pull/device_push and from drive_delete_forever. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope constraint does most of the disambiguating work.

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 '/sdcard only' scoping and the 'Requires confirm=true' prerequisite give implicit guidance on when this tool applies. However, there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it, nor a pointer to sibling alternatives (e.g. drive_delete_forever for cloud files, device_shell for paths outside /sdcard).

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