retire_agent

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important effects: releasing owned resources, finishing dependency notices, removing the agent from list_agents, and causing new messages to fail while preserving existing messages. It also explains reversal paths through unretire_agent, re-registration, or activity as the same agent.

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 dense but appropriately sized for a complex, safety-sensitive operation, and the core action is front-loaded. It could be structured more cleanly, but every sentence carries relevant behavioral or usage information.

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 tool with no output schema and full parameter coverage, the description covers prerequisites, effects, non-effects, reversal behavior, and sibling-tool interactions. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 has 100% description coverage for both required parameters, so the schema already explains agent_name and project_key. The description adds behavioral context around retiring an agent but does not add parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: retiring an agent's registration, with effects on list_agents and message delivery. It clearly distinguishes this from unretire_agent, list_agents, whois, and other siblings.

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?

It gives explicit use conditions (agreed whole-session closeout or completion with nothing remaining) and an explicit exclusion under T3 Code. It also states the prerequisite for retiring another agent: confirm with its owning host that the session has ended, because roster data or ping timeouts are insufficient.

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