retire_manual_revision

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a soft-delete (implying recoverability rather than hard removal) and that it is owner-restricted, but says nothing about what happens to references, whether the action is reversible, or how the required reason is used.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but roughly two thirds of the text is a pricing/upsell pitch ('3 printers (grow to 50)', upgrade URL) that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. The useful content is a single sentence.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is thin: it never explains the reason argument, side effects on manual history, or recovery behavior. The upsell text crowds out information the agent actually needs.

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 0% for both required parameters (manual_id, reason), and the description adds nothing about their meaning or format — notably what qualifies as a valid reason. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, so it lands below the baseline.

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 specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete a manual revision') plus gating constraints (Business+, owner-only), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent manual tools like get_manual_revision or diff_assembly_manuals, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only real guidance is the eligibility constraint ('Business+, owner-only'), which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing tells the agent when to retire a revision versus rollback_design_version or plain deletion, and the second paragraph is marketing copy, not usage instruction.

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