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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the retired claim stays listed, posts that cite it retain the original wording, and the action is irreversible. That irreversibility is the key behavioral fact an agent needs and it is stated outright.

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?

Front-loaded with the effect and consequence, then alternatives. Three sentences plus a related-tools line is slightly longer than needed but nearly every clause carries distinct information (irreversibility, cite-wording persistence, save_claim routing).

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destructive, irreversible semantics, the post-retirement visibility, and the correct alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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% with a single documented parameter ('An active claim's id from list_claims'), so the schema carries the burden. The description reinforces that the target must be an *active* claim, but adds no new syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Retires an active claim'), plus the concrete consequence that drafts and post checks stop using it. This clearly distinguishes it from the similarly-named list_claims (read) and save_claim (create/edit).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: to change wording call save_claim with the id instead, and to restate a fact add a new claim with save_claim. It also states the exclusion that reactivation is impossible, which removes an obvious but wrong alternative action.

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