zhiqi_retire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the irreversible nature, revocation of credentials, release of identity quota, permanent non-reusability, and retention of historical records. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or secondary effects like impact on collaborations, but the core destructive behavior is transparently disclosed.

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 that front-loads the most critical fact ('不可逆' – irreversible) and then lists the key outcomes without any filler. Every clause carries information: credential revocation, quota release, permanent block, and record retention. It is optimally concise and well structured.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its most important behavioral consequences. It does not explain the exact response format or edge cases (e.g., what happens if the device is already retired), but given the low complexity, the description is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema already describes the single optional parameter 'reason' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter-specific detail. The description does not mention the reason parameter, but the schema covers it entirely, keeping the baseline at 3. No additional semantic value is added beyond the schema.

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 ('设备退役' – device retirement) and explicitly lists the concrete consequences: revoking credentials, releasing identity quota, and permanently blocking the identity code. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like zhiqi_register or zhiqi_reissue, which imply creation or renewal rather than destruction.

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 usage through the term '退役' and warns of irreversibility, which suggests this is the tool for permanent decommissioning and should be used cautiously. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools or provide exclusion conditions. The guidance is present but only implicit.

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