post_w_company_bulk_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 indicates this is a bulk deprecation write operation but does not explain consequences, reversibility, required permissions, or what 'deprecate' actually changes for the assets.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the action and endpoint, then maps each request component to its parameter slot. No sentence is wasted, though the final 'Provide the request payload in body' is somewhat redundant with the parameter name.

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 tool with no annotations and no useful input schema details, the description gives only a high-level routing map. An agent still cannot construct a valid request because the body shape, route ID format, filter structure, and pagination syntax are all unspecified.

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 provides only generic `body`, `query`, `headers`, and `path_params` objects with zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does add useful high-level meaning by stating route IDs go in `path_params`, filters and pagination go in `query`, headers in `headers`, and the payload in `body`, but it stops short of defining exact field names or formats.

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 states a specific action ('Bulk deprecate assets') and the exact endpoint (`POST /w/company/bulk_deprecate`), so an agent can tell what resource is being acted on. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the name and endpoint are distinctive enough within the sibling set.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any conditions that would select it. It only explains how to call the endpoint, not why or when this operation is appropriate.

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