render_prep_pack

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it does nothing except return a retirement guidance message. It explains the deprecation reason and confirms no operations are performed, which is complete 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear deprecation header, explanation, and replacement steps. It is somewhat lengthy but all information earns its place; however, it could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the tool's deprecated status, the description covers the essential behavioral change and replacement. However, it omits details about output schema (which exists) and actual response format, leaving some gap in completeness for a tool with a defined output.

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 description does not mention the two parameters (pack_id, mark_ready) or state that they are ignored. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to provide any parameter semantics, leaving the agent confused about their relevance.

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 explicitly states that the tool is deprecated and only returns deprecation guidance, no longer performing any operation. This is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from active sibling tools like compose_paper and bind_paper_slot.

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 provides clear when-not-to-use instructions and directs users to the replacement workflow (compose_paper/create_paper + bind_paper_slot) and to get_role_manual for further guidance. This explicitly differentiates from alternatives.

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