delete_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions deletion and track targeting, but does not warn about irreversibility, potential error conditions, or the effect of passing both 'track' and 'track_index'. This is a destructive operation, and the lack of warnings or behavioral details is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and the one nuanced detail about track targeting. 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It fails to explain the required 'device_index' parameter, the meaning of 'track_index', or the behavior when both 'track' and 'track_index' are provided. For a destructive tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 for parameter meaning. It only explains the 'track' parameter (allowing 'master'/'return:N'), but leaves 'track_index' and 'device_index' completely unexplained. There is no mention of how these parameters interact or which takes precedence, making the parameter semantics insufficient.

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 from a track') and identifies the resource (device on a track). It also distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'delete_track' by specifying device deletion. The track='master'/'return:N' note adds precision, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 some usage context by explaining how to target master/return tracks via the 'track' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_device_enabled' (disabling vs deleting), nor does it mention prerequisites or edge cases. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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