Remove a reverse port forward

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description adds the underlying `adb reverse --remove <remote>` semantics, which confirms the mapping is deleted rather than modified, but says nothing about permissions or failure modes beyond what idempotency implies.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb+resource first and the ADB equivalence as supporting detail. Nothing is padded or 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-required-parameter removal tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to complete. It could mention behavior when the remote spec was never created, but the idempotentHint annotation largely covers that gap, and no output schema exists to explain.

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 `device` and `remote` are already documented in the schema, including the example format. The description only echoes `<remote>` as a placeholder, adding no syntax or validation detail beyond the structured fields.

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 (Remove) and resource (a reverse socket connection created with reverse_port), and pairs itself with the sibling that created the mapping. An agent can distinguish this from remove_forward and reverse_port without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'created with reverse_port' makes the lifecycle pairing explicit, implying the user should have an existing mapping from reverse_port before calling this. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. 'use remove_forward for forward mappings') or failure conditions, but the context is unambiguous.

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