deprecate_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does it well: it declares 'write, deterministic, no LLM,' discloses that a later call with the same old supersedes the replacement, and states the return value. This is more transparent than most descriptions.

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 front-loaded with the essential type and behavior, then adds a brief rationale and follow-up instruction. It is slightly longer than necessary because of the motivational clause, but every sentence contributes to selection or usage.

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?

It covers purpose, behavior, supersession, next step, and return value without an output schema. It could more explicitly cover error cases or how a removal is represented when new is required, but no critical calling context 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that old is the replaced code symbol and new is its replacement, including renamed or removed symbols. The optional reason parameter is not addressed, though its role is largely self-evident.

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 names a specific operation and resource: record that a code symbol old was replaced by new during a refactor. It distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself a 'REFACTOR RECORD' with deterministic write semantics and positioning it as the fix for re-emitting deleted calls.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: after a refactor replaces an old symbol with new, and it gives an explicit follow-up instruction to call check_code(generated). It does not name alternative tools or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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