npm_deprecate

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds significant context: it shows a warning on install, uses HTTP API with NPM_TOKEN to avoid 2FA issues, enforces a 1024-character message limit, and gives a common 422 troubleshooting path. This goes well beyond the structured metadata and provides actionable behavioral details.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavioral effect, auth rationale, and troubleshooting. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any redundant or verbose wording.

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 destructive mutation tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how it authenticates, constraints (character limit), and common failure troubleshooting. Combined with rich annotations and full schema coverage, it provides a complete operational picture without needing an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, and the property descriptions already explain the meaning of name, message, and versionRange including semver nuances. The tool description does not add parameter-level semantic information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Deprecate a package or specific versions.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like npm_undeprecate and npm_unpublish_version. The additional context about warning messages and API usage further clarifies the tool's role.

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 states when to use the tool (to deprecate) and highlights a key advantage over CLI auth: bypassing 2FA friction. It also provides troubleshooting guidance pointing to npm_versions on 422 errors. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like npm_undeprecate or state when not to use this tool, missing a bit of explicit exclusion guidance.

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