retire_constraint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: retirement is a soft operation ('never delete'), and only active rules are eligible. It omits what happens on zero or multiple matches, whether the change is reversible, and any permission requirements, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical 'never delete' is placed exactly where it matters and the emphasis on 'ONE' flags the uniqueness constraint efficiently.

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 not be described, and one parameter keeps the surface small. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves failure modes (no match, multiple matches) and reversibility undefined.

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% and the sole parameter is just typed as a string, so the description is the only source of meaning — and it does add that the value is a 'fragment' matched against rules rather than an exact identifier. It does not explain matching rules, case sensitivity, or ambiguity handling, so it only partially compensates.

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?

Names a specific verb (retire) and its object (the one active rule matching the fragment), which is enough to separate it from set_constraint and list_constraints. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting behavior, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No explicit statement of when to use this versus set_constraint or list_constraints, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The 'ONE active rule' phrasing implies a match must be unique, but the agent is left to infer this rather than being told.

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