haops_deprecate_skill_pack

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the soft-delete nature, the 'paranoid destroy' pattern, lack of cascading, the required admin privilege and feature flag, the specific error for system packs, and the return type ('server confirmation message'). This equips the agent with a comprehensive understanding of the tool's effects and constraints.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core action and then efficiently covering constraints, error conditions, and alternatives. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant or extraneous information. It packs crucial details into a single paragraph.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (auth requirement, feature flag, special handling for system packs, and no output schema), the description is complete. It covers authorization, preconditions, error handling, return value, and provides an explicit workaround for a common failure case. There are no obvious gaps left for the agent to infer.

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%, so the input schema already describes both parameters (name and verbose). The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what's in the schema; it mentions verbose implicitly via 'If true, return the full API response' but that's already stated. Therefore, the description provides no extra value for parameter understanding, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 tool's action: 'Soft-delete (deprecate) a skill pack'. It immediately distinguishes it from other tools by specifying the resource (skill pack) and the nature (soft-delete, unversioned, no cascade), setting it apart from related sibling tools like haops_deprecate_skill or haops_delete_channel.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Admin only, requires ENABLE_COMPOSED_PROTOCOLS=true', and explains when not to use it: system packs cannot be deleted, with a clear alternative: 'to "deprecate" a system pack, update its skillIds to empty via haops_update_skill_pack instead'. This gives the agent precise context for choosing between tools.

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