retire_design_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the release record is preserved while its name no longer resolves. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, whether the retirement is reversible, side effects on related versions, and what the response contains. The remaining marketing copy adds no behavioral value.

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 useful information is confined to the first sentence, which is well front-loaded. The next three lines are pricing-plan marketing and an upgrade URL unrelated to invoking the tool, taking up most of the description without helping the agent.

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 two-parameter retirement mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It gives the core effect but lacks usage guidance, parameter meaning, permission requirements, and side-effect details that an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 description never mentions either parameter. Schema coverage is only 50%: release_id has no description at all, and reason is documented only with a placeholder default. The description does not compensate by explaining what release_id identifies or what reason is used for.

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 line gives a specific action and effect: 'Yank a release — record preserved, name no longer resolves.' It clearly describes retirement behavior and distinguishes it from deletion by noting the record is preserved. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like archive_design or retire_feature_release, but the core purpose is clear.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus delete_design, archive_design, rollback_design_version, or the other retire_* sibling tools. The only conditional-sounding text is 'Requires Kiln Pro,' which reads as a paid-plan advertisement rather than actionable usage guidance.

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