retire_tenant_issuer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags the operation as sensitive, discloses that the old certificate can no longer issue new credentials, and clarifies that existing credentials stay valid until expiry. It omits auth/permission requirements and confirmation of irreversibility, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the consequence. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the key outcome and the scope of impact on existing credentials. It falls short only on operational prerequisites (permissions, need for a successor certificate) that an agent would want before invoking it.

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 tool effectively takes no meaningful input (a single empty body object, 100% schema coverage with no fields to document). There is nothing for the description to add on parameters, so the baseline for a zero-parameter call applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Retire) and a precisely scoped resource (the intermediate tenant certificate used for device credential signing). No sibling tool overlaps with this action, so the agent can identify it immediately without opening the schema.

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 implies when the tool is relevant by describing the effect of retiring, but it never states the preconditions for calling it (e.g., whether a replacement certificate must already be provisioned) or any situation in which it should be avoided. With no alternative tools offering this capability, there is no sibling routing to clarify either.

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