deprecate_oob_field

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

No annotations provided; the description reveals a behavioral requirement (confirmation) but does not disclose other traits like reversibility, permissions, or side effects. The confirmation flag is noted, which adds some transparency but could be more comprehensive.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides usage guidance and a key behavioral requirement.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (deprecate a field). The description covers purpose, usage, and a parameter requirement. While it lacks details about the effect of deprecation or return values, these are somewhat implied. Given no output schema, it is fairly complete.

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 only 33% (only field_path has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining that 'confirmed: true' is required and provides an example field path. However, it does not clarify the access_token parameter, leaving some gaps.

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 action (deprecate), target (OOB Adobe-managed field), method (via descriptor), and gives examples (itemDescription, itemName). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool deprecate_schema_field for custom fields.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('for standard fields like itemDescription, itemName') and when not to ('for custom tenant fields use deprecate_schema_field'). Also notes the requirement for 'confirmed: true', providing clear usage conditions.

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