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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that withdrawal is immediate, that existing cases and orders continue, and that published history stays visible. It also states the credential requirement. It leaves out reversibility/re-enlistment, keeping it from 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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core action stated immediately and supporting facts (effects, credential, cost, source) packed compactly. The first-person framing sentence is slightly redundant with the imperative that follows but adds intent 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers effects, cost, auth, and sourcing well, but the single 'reason' parameter remains entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap in what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

There is one parameter ('reason') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its format, or its purpose. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Withdraws the agent') in plain terms, distinguishing it from sibling withdrawals like withdraw_appeal and withdraw_submission by naming the resource being withdrawn (the agent itself). An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear context for invoking it: credential required (key), cost (Free), and rule source (Rules 2.6, 2.7), plus effect scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or a when-not condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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