deprecate_schema_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the field remains but is flagged (non-destructive) and requires confirmation. However, it does not elaborate on what 'flagged' entails or any side effects, though the core behavior is clear.

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: first for purpose, second for alternative and prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a key prerequisite. It lacks details on effects of deprecation and error conditions, but for a simple deprecation marker, it is largely adequate.

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 description must compensate. It explains the 'confirmed' parameter's role and implicitly identifies fieldgroup_id and field_name as targets, but does not mention definition_key or access_token. Partial value added beyond schema.

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 custom tenant fieldgroup field as deprecated') and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'deprecate_oob_field' by explicitly noting the alternative for OOB fields. The target ('custom tenant fieldgroup field') is specific.

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 this tool vs alternative ('For OOB Adobe fields use deprecate_oob_field') and provides a prerequisite ('Requires confirmed: true to execute'). No ambiguity.

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