npm_undeprecate

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate mutation risk. It adds value by explaining that clearing the deprecation message is the behavior, and that it is 'more explicit about intent', which helps the agent understand the semantic effect. No contradictions with 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?

The description is only two sentences, both directly relevant. It starts with the core action 'Clear the deprecation message' and then adds a concise equivalence note, with 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the purpose and relationship to npm_deprecate, and the schema fully defines the parameters. The annotations provide the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing. The only minor gap is lack of mention of permissions or access requirements, but that's beyond what might be expected given the annotations.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: 'name' as package name and 'versionRange' with the note about omitting to undeprecate all versions. The description's mention of 'package or specific versions' adds no additional detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'clear' and identifies the resource ('deprecation message from a package or specific versions'), which clearly states the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling npm_deprecate by explicitly referencing the equivalence, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides guidance by noting equivalence to 'npm_deprecate with an empty message', framing when this tool is the appropriate choice instead of using npm_deprecate directly. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it when the goal is removal rather than setting a deprecation.

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