retire_asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds '[Write]' which aligns with destructive behavior but does not disclose additional traits like irreversibility or impact on related records. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose, but it is too brief to be fully effective. It could be structured with more detail without being verbose. It is concise but under-specified.

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 that this is a destructive write operation with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about what the function returns, any post-conditions (e.g., asset status change), and preconditions. The contextual completeness is low for a tool with no output schema and significant side effects.

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 each parameter described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions. Baseline 3 applies since schema param descriptions are sufficient.

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 'Retire an IT asset (mark as disposed/retired)' clearly states the action and resource, with a helpful '[Write]' indicator. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_asset' or 'track_asset_lifecycle' which might also modify asset status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., asset must not be in use) or when to prefer 'update_asset' instead. The description lacks any contextual usage advice.

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