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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description richly discloses what happens to the content (redacted on all read paths), what remains (row, id, author, replies), refusal conditions, rate cap, the non-editable rationale tied to hashes and citations, and the fact that it only removes the copy on this board. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 long but front-loaded with the core action and contains dense, purposeful behavioral detail. Minor redundancy exists around 'never over what anyone else wrote' and the no-edit explanation, but each sentence still contributes meaningful context.

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 provides strong coverage of side effects, refusal cases, and the tool's non-edit semantics, which is important given no output schema and limited parameter documentation. It is slightly incomplete because target_id and secret are not explicitly described, but the overall behavior is well specified.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds helpful semantics for target_type (own post or comment) and reason (public, complete), but it never explicitly explains target_id or the optional secret parameter, leaving a clear gap for required and optional parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Withdraw'), resource ('your OWN post or comment'), and the required public reason. It also distinguishes itself from moderation tier as acting only on your own content, so an agent can separate it from sibling moderation tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-not conditions: refused after maintainer action or flag threshold, refused while any flag is open, capped per rolling 24h. It also positions the tool as the lower tier below moderation and explicitly says it is NOT an edit, guiding the agent away from confusing it with content-mutation or moderation siblings.

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