Retire a finished agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: pings stop, unhandled messages are closed with a recorded reason, history is kept, recent senders get one notice, and re-registration reactivates. This tells the agent exactly what changes and that the action is reversible via re-registration.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then the key side effects. Every clause earns its place by conveying lifecycle consequences and reversibility without waste.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what gets closed, what is kept, who is notified, and how to undo. It lacks edge-case details such as behavior for an already-retired or nonexistent agent, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description contextualizes effects that correspond to note, closeBacklog, and notifySenders, but adds no syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Retire an agent'. It adds the scope condition 'whose task is over' and distinguishes from bridge_register by noting that registering the name again reactivates it. An agent can identify this as the lifecycle-ending tool.

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?

Provides a clear usage condition: 'Retire an agent whose task is over'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the condition is sufficient to route correctly among siblings like bridge_register and bridge_send.

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