news_deactivate_editor

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the backend was shut down and that calls return 410 Gone, which is the single most behaviorally relevant fact about this tool.

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?

Deprecation warning leads, followed by explanation and routing in three short sentences. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is a tangential upsell that is not strictly required to operate this tool, though it is brief.

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 dead, parameterless tool, the description conveys everything an agent needs: stop, here is why, go here instead. Minor omission is whether invocation errors or silently no-ops, but 410 Gone effectively covers that.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. It could have stated that it takes no input, but no meaningful gap exists.

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 names the concrete verb and resource ('deactivate an editor via the aibtc.news API') and immediately front-loads its deprecation status, so an agent knows both what it was and that it is unusable.

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?

Explicit 'do not use' instruction plus a named replacement ('use legion_status instead (start with legion_status)') and a secondary pointer to earning_opportunities. This is exactly the when-not-to-use plus alternative guidance the dimension rewards.

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