deprecate_runbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what 'deprecated' means operationally; for a state-changing tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action, usage condition, and parameter are each stated in minimal words. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 one-parameter state-change tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable: it gives purpose, a usage trigger, and the required argument. However, because annotations are absent, it should also clarify whether deprecation is reversible and what side effects occur, leaving a noticeable completeness gap.

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 0%, and the description only says 'runbook_id: The runbook to deprecate,' which largely restates the parameter name and type. It does not clarify the ID format, how to obtain it, or any constraints beyond the schema's required marker.

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 opens with 'Mark a runbook as deprecated', a specific verb and resource, and the action is unique among siblings (deprecate vs promote/create/get). This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use when a procedure is no longer safe or relevant.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but for this domain the condition is clear enough to distinguish from promote_runbook and other runbook operations.

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