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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by naming what is destroyed (emailable/postable/quotable status) and flagging the optimistic-concurrency requirement ('expectedRevision must match'), which is behavioral context not present in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the effect and then the precondition. No filler, nothing repeated from 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile. The description covers effect and precondition but omits whether retirement is reversible and what happens when expectedRevision does not match.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies expectedRevision (must match, implying a concurrency check that can fail) but says nothing about wordingId beyond it being the target, and does not describe what a mismatch does.

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) plus resource (wording) and the concrete consequence (no longer emailable, postable, quotable). It does not explicitly contrast with near siblings like dismiss_sendable_change or approve_sendable_wording, so an agent must still infer which lifecycle action applies.

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 effect sentence implies the situation for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the ten siblings (dismiss/approve/save). The agent is left to infer that 'retire' is the terminal removal action.

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