item_deprecate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a key side effect: dropping a subsprint deprecates its open items too, and 'drop' strongly implies destructive scope. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but the most important behavior is covered.

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 description is a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and uses the second half to add the subsprint behavior, making every word count.

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 tool with only two required string parameters and no output schema, the description covers both modes, the need for a reason, and the important cascading side effect. It omits return-value details and reversibility, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It clarifies that 'reason' is the deprecation rationale and that 'id' can refer to either an item or a subsprint, adding meaning not found in the schema. This is sufficient for the two simple parameters.

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 description clearly states the primary action ('Resolve an item as deprecated with a reason') and an alternate mode ('drop a whole subsprint'), using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like item_done and item_update by explicitly naming the deprecation state and the cascading effect on subsprint items.

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 gives clear context: use it when you want to deprecate an item or drop an entire subsprint. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the two usage scenarios are stated enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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