retire_feature_release

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful trait — the record is preserved and only name resolution stops — but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, what happens to downstream references or the required tier in a trustworthy form; the remaining bulk is promotional text unrelated to retirement behavior.

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 clause is well front-loaded and earns its place, but roughly two-thirds of the description is upsell copy about unrelated Pro features and a pricing URL. That text is waste at best and misleading at worst for an agent trying to decide whether to call a retirement tool.

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?

Placeholder — not used; see revised score below.

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 coverage is only 50%: release_id has no description at all, and reason is documented merely as "Default: \"\"", which explains nothing about purpose or where the reason is recorded. The description adds zero meaning about either parameter, so the coverage gap is left entirely unaddressed.

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 clause names a specific verb and resource ("Yank a feature release") and adds real scope detail ("record preserved, name stops resolving"). However it draws no distinction from the many near-identical siblings (retire_design_release, retire_decoration_preset_release, retire_feature_branch, cloud_retire_remote_branch), and the following three sentences describe calibration, mid-print edits and textures, which actively blur what the tool does.

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 statement of when to retire a release versus rolling back, deleting a feature, or retiring a branch — the closest siblings go unmentioned. The only conditional content is a marketing line implying a Kiln Pro tier requirement, which is buried in ad copy rather than stated as a prerequisite or exclusion.

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