device_range_delete

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 adds the max-1024 batch constraint, which is useful, but it does not disclose atomicity, behavior when the range exceeds 1024 or startAddr > endAddr, side effects on associated routes/data, permission requirements, or the response format. For a destructive bulk operation, this is a significant transparency 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?

A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. The only extra detail, the max-1024 limit, is directly relevant to invoking the tool correctly.

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?

An agent can construct a valid call: all required parameters are documented in the schema and the key operational constraint is in the description. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent has no guidance on expected return values, error behavior, or edge cases like range-too-large or mismatched address lengths for a bulk destructive operation.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters individually. The description adds relational meaning — startAddr and endAddr form a range capped at 1024 — which the schema does not express, but this is marginal on top of well-described parameters, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb (delete), resource (devices), and selection mechanism (hex address range), which effectively distinguishes it from device_delete (single device) and device_bulk_delete (presumably an explicit list). It falls short of a 5 only because it names no sibling explicitly and leaves the contrast with device_bulk_delete implicit.

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 phrasing 'Bulk delete devices by hex address range' implies the use case: deleting a contiguous block of device addresses in one call. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over device_bulk_delete or device_delete, nor any when-not-to-use or boundary guidance, so the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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