retire_decoration_preset_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a key trait: the record is preserved while the name stops resolving (tombstone semantics). It does not say whether the action is reversible, who may perform it, or what error occurs on an already-retired release. The 'Requires Kiln Pro' line hints at tier gating but is phrased as ad copy rather than a clear permission requirement.

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 excellent and front-loaded, but it is followed by two sentences of unrelated subscription upsell and a pricing URL that carry zero invocation value. Roughly two-thirds of the description is waste.

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 mutation-style retire tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a partially documented parameter set, the description should explain reversibility, permissions, and effect on dependents. It covers only the name-resolution effect and pads the rest with marketing copy.

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 only 50% (release_id is undocumented; reason only carries a default), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It never explains what release_id refers to or how reason is used, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 opening line gives a specific verb and resource ('Yank a preset release') plus a concrete behavioral effect ('record preserved, name stops resolving'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like verify_decoration_preset_release or sign_decoration_preset_release, but it never names those alternatives explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing explains when to retire a release versus archive_decoration_preset or retire_decoration_preset_branch. No prerequisites, sequencing, or preconditions are stated; the remaining text is pricing marketing, not usage context.

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