mmp_deprecate

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the action (mark deprecated, append reason) but does not detail side effects (e.g., whether the entry becomes read-only, or if it's reversible). Adequate but not rich for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences: first states the action, second provides a usage condition. No unnecessary words. Well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

The description lacks parameter documentation, which is critical since schema coverage is 0%. While the output schema exists (not shown), the overall completeness is poor because the agent cannot determine how to fill 'id', 'rev', and 'file' correctly.

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%, and the description only mentions 'reason' (concise English reason). It does not explain 'id', 'rev', or 'file', leaving the agent to infer their roles. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter required tool.

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 marks an entry deprecated and appends a reason. It also specifies the condition 'Use only when no replacement entry is needed,' distinguishing it from update or delete operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('only when no replacement entry is needed') and implies when not to use (if a replacement is needed, alternatives like mmp_update should be considered).

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