Retire Quality Policy

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

Annotations already carry idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the policy 'stops counting as the newest policy, and stays readable in every run, assessment, pair review, comparison and Champion record that already names it.' It also mitigates the destructiveHint by stating nothing is deleted, and it discloses the required permission, create:models. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler: the core action is first, then the lifecycle effects, then permissions and deletion boundaries. Every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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 mutating policy operation, the description covers the action, the affected workflows, idempotency behavior, permission requirements, and the explicit non-deletion guarantee. An output schema is present, so return-value details are not missing. Nothing essential is left out.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the retired parameter with 'Retire (retired=true) or restore (retired=false),' but study_id and policy_id are only anchored by the phrases 'saved policy' and 'the study's project.' It does not explain how to obtain these IDs or clarify their relationship beyond natural inference from their names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource pair: 'Retire (retired=true) or restore (retired=false) a saved policy without changing it.' It then clarifies what retirement means in practice, so an agent can distinguish this from creating, updating, or deleting a policy.

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 usage context: it affects new launches, assessments, and pair-review resolutions, and it explicitly excludes deletion with 'Nothing is deleted: removal of an unreferenced policy is an owner-only frontend action.' However, it does not name sibling tools such as create_quality_policy as alternatives, so it stops short of explicit when-to-use versus alternative guidance.

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