Mark a knowledge article as outdated by providing its article number or sys_id, ensuring outdated content is clearly retired from active use.
[Write] Retire a knowledge article (mark as outdated)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| article_id | Yes | Article number (KB...) or sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds value by specifying that retiring means 'mark as outdated', which clarifies the exact nature of the operation. However, it does not disclose additional side effects or reversibility.
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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant words. It is efficient and to the point.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and effect. It could be enhanced with usage context, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is reasonably complete.
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 fully describes the single parameter article_id with its format (KB... or sys_id), and the description adds no additional parameter information. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Retire' with the resource 'knowledge article' and clarifies the meaning as 'mark as outdated'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_knowledge_article or publish_knowledge_article.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The only implicit context is the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.