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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the rule is not permanently deleted but becomes inactive while remaining in history. It also notes that the action follows the user's request, which is a behavioral cue. This goes beyond the annotation's binary safety flag.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that packs the core action, the two target kinds of rules, and the post-condition. No filler; the most important information (what it does and what happens) is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It states what is retired and the result. It could mention permission requirements or reversibility, but those are not critical for this operation and the description is adequate.

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% – both parameters (company and rule_id) are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. It correctly references 'rule_id' but doesn't elaborate beyond the schema's explanation that it's shown by list_rules.

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 clearly states the action (retire) on a specific resource (saved bookkeeping rule or proposed rule) and adds the effect ('remains in history but is no longer active'). It distinguishes from other rule tools by specifying 'retire or decline' vs create/remember/list. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 description implies when to use it (when the user wants to retire or decline a rule) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to sibling tools like remember_rule or list_rules.

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