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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds the substantive consequence the annotations cannot convey: the word leaves practice but retains its progress, and the action is reversible.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, with the inverse operation appended compactly. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to convey the state transition and its effect, which it does. Minor gap: it does not warn that retired words may still be listed/hidden in list_words results, which affects downstream tool behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already document themselves, including the boolean's true/false meaning. The description restates the same true/false semantics rather than adding new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Retires a word") with the two-way semantics spelled out ("or brings a retired word back"). It is clearly distinct from delete_word because retirement is framed as a state toggle that preserves the word, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear selection criterion: retire a word "the user knows well enough" so it "stops coming up in practice." The un-retire direction is also stated. No explicit when-not or named alternative (delete_word vs retire) is offered, only implied by "keeps its progress."

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