List removal candidates

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

Annotations give only readOnlyHint, and the description goes well beyond it: it enumerates the returned fields (key, reason, status, treatment, blockedBy), explains the dead-vs-stale filter semantics and default, notes cursor pagination, and discloses the cross-tool failure mode (FLAG_HAS_DEPENDENTS) that constrains deletion order.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the item shape, then the ordering constraint. Dense and largely waste-free, though the multi-clause explanation of the dependents rule is slightly long for a list endpoint.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's item-field enumeration is essential, and it is provided. Combined with the staleness/pagination notes and the deletion-ordering prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on results.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description usefully clarifies staleness semantics (dead default, stale adds stale flags) and pagination via cursor. The limit bound and project parameter are not elaborated, but project is self-evident and limit is bounded by 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list flags the server is confident can be removed) and identifies the exact artifact it mirrors (the Featureflip flag cleanup GitHub Action list). It is clearly distinguishable from list_flags and archive_flag without opening a 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?

Gives strong operational guidance: only remove flags whose blockedBy is empty, and remove dependents first with an explicit consequence for violating that order (archive_flag refuses with FLAG_HAS_DEPENDENTS). It does not, however, explain when to prefer this over the sibling find_stale_flags, so the routing between the two candidate-listing tools is left implicit.

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