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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the owner is notified via answer links, nothing is recorded, the status becomes withdrawn, and the question continues to count against ask limits until expires_at. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs to know before invoking a 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then layers on the necessary behavioral details without wasted sentences. Every clause contributes either usage context, side-effect disclosure, or the limit/idempotency constraints.

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 a three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers what happens, what is recorded, how limits are affected, idempotency, and the answered-question restriction. Annotations already cover safety hints, so the description adds the remaining behavioral context.

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 100%, with ask_id, instance_id, and passport_token all documented in the schema itself. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: withdraw a question to your owner that is still waiting for an answer. It clearly explains the intended state change, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool delete_ask, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 a clear condition for use: the question is still waiting and you no longer need it. It also states when not to use it, since an answered question cannot be withdrawn and repeated withdrawal changes nothing, though it never names delete_ask as an alternative.

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