retire_decoration_preset_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation-style operation. It states "Requires Kiln Pro," which is a useful prerequisite, but it does not disclose whether retirement is reversible, what happens to the branch, required permissions, or side effects.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the following two sentences are pricing/marketing copy rather than tool guidance. Those sentences do not help an agent select or invoke the tool and dilute the useful content.

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 and no annotations are provided, so the description should explain return behavior, permissions, and consequences for this retirement mutation. It instead provides an upsell and leaves branch_id undocumented, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single required parameter, branch_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the expected ID format, where to obtain it, or whether it refers to a branch name or internal identifier, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 first sentence gives a clear verb and resource: "Mark a decoration-preset branch retired." It distinguishes the tool from generic branch tools by naming the decoration-preset branch domain. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings such as retire_decoration_preset_release or retire_design_branch.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites beyond a pricing upsell. The existence of sibling retire tools makes the lack of routing guidance a clear gap.

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