Deprecate a component

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 explains that deprecation is non-destructive, history remains in git, and agents can still see past component mappings. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name. It does not mention whether deprecated components are hidden from default listing or whether the operation is reversible via update, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The key action is stated first, and the second sentence adds important design context about why there is no delete. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema is mostly adequate. It explains the operation's purpose and its non-destructive nature. The main gap is the lack of parameter semantics for 'reason', and there is no mention of what the response contains, but for a non-destructive marking operation this is a minor omission.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The 'id', 'reason', and 'replacedBy' parameters are left mostly to inference; only 'replacedBy' has an inline schema description. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, so an agent may not know the purpose of 'reason' or how 'replacedBy' relates to deprecation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a component'), and clearly distinguishes this operation from deletion: 'There is no destructive delete operation for components by design.' It is immediately obvious what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools like registry_update_component or registry_create_component.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: when the intent is to deprecate rather than delete, and it notes that deletion is not available at all. It does not explicitly list alternative tools for other operations, but the 'instead of deleting it' framing gives clear contextual guidance for the primary decision.

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