Retire an assignment that is replaced by a newer one, linking the successor and reason so the coordination memory maintains an accurate revision history.
Integrator-only: retire an assignment replaced by another (superseded_by).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| actor_id | Yes | ||
| actor_role | Yes | ||
| assignment_id | Yes | ||
| base_revision | Yes | ||
| superseded_by | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It discloses an integrator role restriction and a 'retire' state change, but not what retirement does to the assignment, whether it is reversible/destructive, how `base_revision` participates in optimistic concurrency, or any error behavior.
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 a single tight sentence with no filler and front-loads the important access restriction. It is slightly too terse to fully carry the tool's contract, but as a concise statement it 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?
Despite an output schema, the 6-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no annotations needs stronger contextual description to be invoked safely. Missing parameter semantics, behavior, and comparison to related assignment tools make the definition incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the six required parameters. It only clarifies `superseded_by`; `assignment_id`, `base_revision`, `actor_id`, `actor_role`, and `reason` receive no explanation beyond their names.
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 names a specific operation—retire an assignment—and identifies the distinguishing condition: it is replaced by another assignment via `superseded_by`. It is not a tautology and generally separates this from the sibling `cancel_assignment`, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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 phrase 'retire an assignment replaced by another' implies the triggering situation for use, and 'Integrator-only' provides an audience restriction. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or direct the agent to alternatives such as `cancel_assignment`, leaving some selection reasoning to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.