npm_deprecate

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

Even with annotations already marking destructive and idempotent behavior, the description adds a lot: token authentication with 401/403 on missing 2FA bypass, a 1024-character registry limit, local HTTP 400 before any write when the message is too long or versionRange matches nothing, and 422 from the registry describing the sent packument. This is instructive and consistent with the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect. The rest adds behavioral and error-manager detail that mostly earns its place; 'Message punctuation is never checked' is mildly odd but acceptable as an edge-case disclosure. No real bloat.

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 a write operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: auth mechanism, side effect, hard limits, pre-write validation, and error statuses. An agent can successfully invoke the tool and understand common failure modes without needing additional documentation.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already explains name, message, versionRange semantics ('Omit to deprecate ALL versions', 'Use npm_undeprecate to clear', x-range semantics). The description only adds message-length/error semantics indirectly, not a substantive semantic expansion of the parameters.

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 first sentence 'Deprecate a package or specific versions' gives a specific verb and resource, and adds the effect 'Shows a warning message on install'. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like npm_undeprecate, so it is clear but not top-tier on sibling differentiation.

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 implies a usage path by saying 'Uses the HTTP API with NPM_TOKEN, so no CLI login or OTP prompt is involved', which hints at when to choose this approach. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives in the description itself.

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