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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true): it discloses that credential purge is atomic, that purged credentials CANNOT be restored even by reactivate_spec, what operations become blocked, and that historical evidence remains readable. This is exactly the irreversibility and side-effect detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and its two effects, then consequences and the irreversibility warning. No filler or repetition 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything material: side effects, blocked follow-on operations, preserved data, and the fact that the purge is permanent. Return-format explanation is unnecessary given the output schema.

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% and the single specId parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description adds no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retire') and resource (spec) plus the concrete effects: status flips to 'inactive' and credentials are purged atomically. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling reactivate_spec, which reverses the status (but not the purge).

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?

Explains the operational consequences that define when to use it – the spec rejects updates, new test runs, endpoint inspection, and credential management – and references reactivate_spec for the reverse direction. It never states an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' rule, so it stops short of a 5.

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