haops_deprecate_role_template

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: soft-delete vs hard delete, cascading across versions, admin-only requirement, feature flag dependency, and 403 error for system templates. It could elaborate on reversibility or cascading details, but the audit context note adds value.

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?

Three sentences, each packed with essential info: action, constraints, exceptions, and audit behavior. Front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and edge cases. It could mention the response format, but the verbose parameter implies a structured response. Overall, sufficient for invocation.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not repeat parameter info, but the schema already suffices.

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 ('soft-delete'), the resource ('role template'), and distinguishing features: cascading across all versions, admin-only, requires composed-protocols feature flag. It also contrasts with system templates, setting it apart from sibling tools like haops_deprecate_skill and haops_delete_* tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (soft-delete of non-system templates with feature flag) and when not to use (system templates return 403), providing alternatives: 'publish a new version via haops_update_role_template or alter the seeder.' Also mentions that soft-deleted rows remain visible in history for audit context.

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