Retire a model from active use or restore a retired model, while requiring human confirmation to enforce governance and prevent unintended changes.
模型退役——标记退役（可恢复），强制人审。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 目标模型名 | |
| action | No | 动作：retire（默认退役）/ restore（恢复退役模型） | retire |
| comment | No | 备注（退役原因 / 恢复理由） | |
| human_confirmed | No | 🔴 人工确认（false/缺省 → 挂起等人审） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that retirement is recoverable and requires human confirmation, which are important traits. However, it does not mention the action enum (retire/restore), the effect of human_confirmed=false (pending state), or any other side effects or permissions. It adds some value but is not comprehensive.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key behaviors. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words, though it could potentially include a bit more contextual detail without becoming verbose.
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 four parameters all documented in the schema, the description covers the most critical behavioral nuances: recoverability and mandatory human review. It does not explicitly mention the action parameter or comment usage, but these are already in the schema. Given the lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to understand the tool's core semantics.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it retires a model ('模型退役'), specifies that the retirement is recoverable ('可恢复'), and mandates human review ('强制人审'). This is a specific verb+resource with key behavioral attributes, distinguishing it from siblings like model_register or model_switch without ambiguity.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implicit hint is the mandatory human review, which implies a governance context, but it does not name sibling tools or conditions for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.