retire_agent

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it discloses that this is a soft (non-destructive) delete, that message history is preserved, that new messages are rejected, and how retired agents appear in listings. It omits auth/permission requirements and does not explicitly state reversibility, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the key behavioral fact (soft-delete, history preserved) front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the behavioral surface is reasonably covered. However, with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves project_key, registration_token, and the authorization context unexplained for a state-mutating tool.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description mentions 'an agent' but adds no meaning for project_key or registration_token, and does not explain the optional registration_token's role or when to supply it. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Soft-delete an agent') and immediately clarifies the mechanism ('mark it as retired'), which cleanly distinguishes it from hard_delete_agent and deregister_agent in the sibling set. An agent can tell what this does without opening any schema.

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 implies when the operation is appropriate by describing the effect (stops accepting messages, history preserved), and the existence of unretire_agent hints at reversibility, but it never names an alternative or states when to choose retire vs deregister vs hard_delete. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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