Retire a reference artifact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a destructive operation ('Removes') and the slot-freeing effect, but it does not mention irreversibility, idempotency, error behavior, or any side effects beyond the slot release.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the key action. The phrase 'Instanced Manifestation, step 2 of 2' adds workflow context, though it is slightly cryptic. Overall, every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter operation, the description is adequate but has clear gaps: it does not describe what happens if the artifact is not held, whether the retire is reversible, what response to expect, or how this step connects to the full manifestation workflow.

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 contains only artifactId with no documentation, so the description partially compensates by clarifying that the removed entity is a 'held artifact.' This makes the artifactId's role inferable, but the description does not explicitly state that artifactId is the identifier of the artifact to retire or explain any format expectations.

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 action ('Removes a held artifact') and the resource ('artifact'), with an additional consequence 'frees its slot.' The phrase 'step 2 of 2' provides context but does not clearly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like retirePresence.

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 usage within a two-step workflow ('step 2 of 2'), suggesting it should follow a prior manifestation step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as addArtifact or retirePresence, leaving the choice to inference.

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