deprecate_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool 'remains visible for history and audit purposes but is no longer recommended or used by default,' but does not mention reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence defines purpose and consequence; second sentence lists use cases. Information is front-loaded and every part adds value.

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 relative simplicity (2 required params, no enums, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, and behavioral impact. Could add minor details on error conditions or reversal.

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%, so the description must add meaning for the two required parameters. It implicitly refers to 'tool_id' and 'reason' in context, but does not clarify expected values, formats, or constraints for 'reason', nor specify if 'tool_id' is an identifier from another 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 action ('Mark a ToolForge tool as deprecated') and the resource ('ToolForge tool'), with specific verbs and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'register_tool' or 'update_tool' by focusing on deprecation.

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 explicitly lists conditions for use: 'when a tool is obsolete, replaced, unsafe for normal use, or no longer preferred.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would strengthen guidance.

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