Retire an IT asset by marking it as disposed, including optional disposal date and reason.
Retire an IT asset (mark as disposed/retired). [Write]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sys_id | Yes | Asset sys_id | |
| disposal_date | No | Disposal date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| disposal_reason | No | Reason for retirement |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add the clarification that the operation 'marks' the asset as disposed/retired rather than deleting it, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like reversibility, required permissions, or side effects beyond the state change.
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 one short sentence plus a '[Write]' tag. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no unnecessary words. This is an example of efficient, minimal description.
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 write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states the action and its effect. However, since there is no output schema, a note about what the tool returns (e.g., updated record or success flag) would have been helpful but is not critical for correct invocation.
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 provides descriptions for all parameters, covering 100% of the semantic meaning. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-related context, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage 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 states a specific verb ('Retire') and resource ('IT asset'), with a clarifying parenthetical ('mark as disposed/retired'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_asset or delete_record, which serve different lifecycle actions.
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 intended usage is implied by the name and description: use when you want to retire an asset. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives such as update_asset or track_asset_lifecycle, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.