deprecate

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

The annotation confirms destructiveHint: true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds minimal context beyond annotations—clarifying that the action is to 'mark' rather than delete, but it does not explain potential side effects, reversibility, or what 'deprecated' means behaviorally.

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, complete sentence that is correctly front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word adds value, achieving high efficiency.

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 has no output schema, and the description doesn't clarify return values or the practical consequences of deprecation (e.g., whether the item becomes hidden or read-only). While the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, the description could be more complete for a destructive 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 100%, with both 'path' and 'reason' explicitly described. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Mark a vault item... as deprecated') with a specific resource ('vault item') and provides an optional parameter ('with an optional reason'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'write' or 'prune' by specifying the deprecation intent.

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 when to use the tool (when wanting to deprecate an item) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the sibling 'prune' exists, explicit guidance on choosing deprecate over prune would be valuable, but it is absent.

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