t2000_service_retire

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: soft-delete nature, that funded jobs continue to settle on-chain, and the ability to relist with the same slug. This goes beyond a simple 'delete' and gives the agent necessary behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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-load the most critical information (soft-delete, on-chain impact, recovery method). Every sentence adds distinct value with 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, side effects (funded jobs continue), and recovery. Missing details like return value or confirmation requirements are minor, but overall adequate for an agent to understand usage.

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 single required parameter 'slug' has a schema description pointing to another tool for finding it. The description adds value by explaining the effect of the parameter (retiring a service) and how to undo it, enriching the agent's understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Take one of your services off the board' with specific details like 'soft-delete' and 'already-funded jobs still settle on-chain'. It also mentions re-creation with the same slug to relist, providing a complete picture of the tool's purpose and distinguishing it from permanent deletion.

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 for retiring a service but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like t2000_service_create or give when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, relying on the user to infer context.

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