Soft-retire a process by setting its status inactive and prefixing its name with , preserving history instead of hard-deleting it.
Soft-retire a process (sets status inactive and prefixes name with ). Prefer this over hard delete when preserving history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| process_id | Yes | Process ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete side effects (status change plus name prefixing) rather than just saying 'retire'. It omits reversibility/restore path and whether the operation is idempotent for an already-retired process, which matters for an unannotated mutation tool.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the effect disclosed first and the decision guidance second. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-param unannotated mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes and which alternative to prefer. Remaining gaps are restore/reversibility and confirming behavior on an already-inactive process.
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?
Only one parameter (process_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already handles it fully. The description adds no extra meaning about ID format or source, which is the baseline expectation at high coverage.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Soft-retire a process') and immediately defines the mechanism (status set inactive, name prefixed with '<retired>'). This clearly separates it from tealfabric_delete_process, which is the sibling it implicitly contrasts against.
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?
Gives an explicit selection rule: 'Prefer this over hard delete when preserving history.' The alternative and the condition that favors this tool are both stated. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use cases or what to do if the process is already retired, so not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.