art.asset.deprecate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Mark an asset as deprecated', which implies a state change but does not explain consequences (e.g., whether it affects references, is reversible, requires permissions, or returns a confirmation). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation, though it might be considered under-specified. It earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations and only a terse description, it is incomplete. An agent cannot tell when to use deprecate over sibling tools like archive or update, nor what the behavioral outcome will be. The output schema is absent, so the response format is unknown. This is a substantial deficiency.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'id' fully, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format, constraints, or examples. It neither improves nor degrades the schema's clarity.

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 'Mark an asset as deprecated' with a specific resource. It is unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like art.asset.archive or art.asset.update, which could also change an asset's state.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, side effects, or conditions like 'use this instead of archive when the asset is no longer in use but should remain discoverable'. The description only states the action without contextual advice.

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