haops_deprecate_skill

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses soft-delete vs. hard-delete, cascading across all versions, toggling isDeprecated=true, preservation of history via a separate endpoint, admin-only restriction, feature flag dependency, and the return structure ({message, versionCount}).

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 with no redundant words. Key information is front-loaded (soft-delete and deprecate), followed by cascading behavior, history visibility, access control, and return type. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 description covers the main behavioral aspects (cascade, soft-delete, history, admin, return). Lacks error scenarios or rate limits, but the complexity is well addressed. Return structure is specified despite no output schema.

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% (all parameters documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining cascade behavior and specifying name as kebab-case, but does not elaborate on scope, verbose, or projectSlug beyond schema comments.

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 explicitly states 'soft-delete + deprecate a skill', specifies the API endpoint, and details cascading behavior across all versions with a return value. It clearly distinguishes from sibling deprecate tools like haops_deprecate_role_template and haops_deprecate_skill_pack.

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 identifies admin-only access and a feature flag gate, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as haops_transition_skill or haops_delete_skill. Usage context (when to deprecate vs. delete or update) is implied but not systematically stated.

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