retire_hypothesis

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

Despite no annotations, the description clearly discloses key behavioral traits: the hypothesis is archived (not deleted), preserved, and marked as retired. It explicitly states 'not deleted,' which is critical for an agent to understand the non-destructive nature. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, explain the mechanism, and clarify the non-destructive aspect. Every sentence serves a distinct function with zero superfluous wording.

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 core behavior (archive, non-deletion) and mentions the pointer in 'replaced_by,' but it does not address what happens if the hypothesis does not exist, if it is already retired, or what the return value is. With no output schema, the agent may need more context on the operation's outcome.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of 'replaced_by'). Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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The description clearly states the action ('Retire a superseded hypothesis'), the affected resource (hypothesis), and the outcome (moved to archive, marked as retired, not deleted). It differentiates the tool from deletion, which is a common alternative. Among siblings, no other tool handles hypothesis retirement, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 only implies usage via 'superseded' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like updating or deleting a hypothesis. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

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