deprecate_oob_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool uses a descriptor and requires confirmed: true, but does not explain what deprecation entails (e.g., irreversible, impact on schema) or any side effects. Some behavioral context is missing.

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 two sentences, each serving a purpose: defining the action and providing usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and moderate parameter complexity, the description covers the key distinctions from siblings and the confirmed requirement. However, it could provide more details on the deprecation effect or prerequisites. Still fairly complete for a straightforward tool.

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 low (33%), with only field_path having a description. The description adds that 'confirmed' must be true, which provides context beyond the schema default of false, but it does not explain access_token or fully describe the confirmed parameter's role. Partial value added.

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 tool deprecates an OOB Adobe-managed field on the decisioning schema using a descriptor. It gives specific examples like itemDescription and itemName, and distinguishes from the sibling tool deprecate_schema_field by specifying it is for custom tenant 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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool (standard fields) and when to use the alternative (custom fields use deprecate_schema_field). It also mentions the requirement 'confirmed: true' for usage.

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