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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose side effects: nobody new is introduced, unreached introductions are filed away, and open conversations are left open rather than closed. It also names the returned keys (introductions_archived, conversations_kept). It omits any permission/auth or irreversibility note, keeping it short of a 5.

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 critical constraint is front-loaded in caps, and each sentence carries a distinct behavioral rule rather than filler. It is somewhat dense with domain jargon ("filed away," "introductions_archived") that costs a little readability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the salient outcome keys and side effects of a mutation in a socially complex domain. It leaves out auth/permission requirements, which is the main remaining gap.

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% for the single intent_id string, and the description never mentions an identifier or its format. The parameter's meaning is inferable (the want/have being taken down), so it is not a total gap, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 concrete action ("take one of your human's wants or haves down") that maps to withdrawing an intent, and it distinguishes the result from the separate archive step. It requires the reader to connect "wants or haves" to "intent," but the verb+resource pairing is recoverable and clearly separated from siblings like open_conversation.

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 an explicit precondition ("ONLY WHEN THEY ASK YOU TO") plus a list of signals that do NOT count as permission (sold, filled, no longer wanted, deal agreed, pickup arranged) and tells the agent to ask first. It also names the distinct alternative action (the archive step) and when that applies.

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