Retire or restore capabilities by marking them retired without deletion, requiring owner confirmation. Scan for retirement candidates.
能力退役/恢复——标记退役（不删除，可恢复），强制 owner 确认。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | 操作：retire=退役 / restore=恢复 / scan=扫描候选 | |
| reason | No | 退役原因（retire 时） | |
| confirmed | No | owner 确认（retire 时必须 true） | |
| capability_id | Yes | 能力 ID（必填） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is non-destructive ('不删除，可恢复') and requires owner confirmation, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain side effects, the scan action's behavior, or whether restore has similar constraints. Partial transparency.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key constraints. No wasted words, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 three actions (retire, restore, scan) and required owner confirmation, the description omits details about the scan action and the overall workflow (e.g., how confirmation is obtained, what happens after retirement). The schema covers parameter semantics but not the tool's behavioral flow. Somewhat incomplete.
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 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is thorough, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none.
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 (retire/restore) and resource (capability), explicitly distinguishes from deletion by noting 'not delete, recoverable', and clarifies the owner confirmation requirement. Clear and non-tautological.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention any sibling tools or conditions for use. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.