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

Goes well beyond the destructive/readOnly/idempotent annotations: all-or-nothing transaction on a foreign rule (404), one audit row per changed rule, changed:false for already-retired rules, no un-retire path, and running iterations keep their original prompt. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 core action, then dense facts each earning their place. Slightly long-winded in the middle but no filler sentences.

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 needn't be documented, yet the description still explains changed:false and the 404 failure mode. Combined with annotations and the transaction semantics, nothing an agent needs 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 0%, so the description must compensate: it names project_id, explains rule_ids come from list_steering_rules, and states the 1-100 cardinality limit. That covers both params meaningfully, though it doesn't specify id format.

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 (steering rules) plus bulk scope (several in one transaction), which cleanly distinguishes it from the singular sibling retire_steering_rule.

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?

Tells the agent to source ids from list_steering_rules and that it covers both active and pending rules including protected retro kaizen, and references the single-rule behavior as the alternative. It doesn't explicitly say 'use retire_steering_rule for one rule', but the context makes the choice clear.

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