retire_book

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that purchases are stopped, existing reader access is preserved, and there is an authorization restriction (primary author only). It does not mention reversibility or return behavior, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with no filler. The main action, key behavioral outcomes, and an access restriction are all front-loaded and each phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the prerequisite (published), the access restriction (primary author), and the operational outcome (no new purchases, existing access retained). It does not describe the return value, but that is a minor gap for this simple mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'slug' parameter. It does not explain that slug identifies the book to retire, nor how to obtain it. The single parameter is conventional, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the bare property name.

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 a specific verb ('Retire') and resource ('a published book'), and states the defining effect: no new purchases while existing readers keep access. This distinguishes it from related lifecycle tools like unpublish_book or close_book without needing to open the schema.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies: the book must be published, and only the primary author can perform the action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the published-book condition and access implications make the usage context reasonably clear.

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