Undeploy Artifact

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that ALLOW_WRITE permission and confirm=true are required, which are critical behavioral prerequisites not apparent from the schema. However, it doesn't discuss reversibility or effects on in-flight messages.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and immediately note the permission/flag requirement. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, effect, and critical parameters. It could add postcondition info or error conditions, but the essentials are present.

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 coverage is 0%. Description adds meaning only for confirm (must be true) but leaves artifactId unexplained beyond its name. With two params and no schema descriptions, the description should elaborate more on both parameters, especially artifactId.

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?

Specific verb 'Undeploy' with resource 'deployed artifact' and effect 'stops it processing messages', clearly distinguishing from siblings like deploy_artifact and list_deployed_artifacts.

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?

Clear context indicated by 'Stops it processing messages' and undeploy operation, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use. The description implies usage for removing an artifact from runtime, but doesn't name alternative tools.

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