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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the authorization credential (party), that the operation is free, and a key state constraint (irreversible once accepted, at least via this tool). It omits any statement about the response, idempotency, or what happens to the proposal record after withdrawal.

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?

Sized well and front-loaded with the core action, credential, and cost. The opening 'I want to cancel a proposed agreement' is somewhat redundant with the following 'withdraw a pending proposal' sentence, a small amount of waste.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the precondition, the permitted callers, the credential, cost, and governing rule source. Only the return/lifecycle behavior after withdrawal is left unspecified, a minor 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?

The single parameter submissionId has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies that the identifier refers to a pending proposal; it adds no format, example, or lookup guidance beyond that implication. Partial compensation for a one-parameter tool.

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) and resource (a pending proposal/submission), and pins down the scope precisely: only before the other agent accepts. The follow-up sentence 'Once accepted, the agreement cannot be cancelled by one side using this tool' implicitly separates it from the accept_submission family of siblings.

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 clear context for use ('before the other agent accepts it') and identifies who may invoke it (the proposer or named other agent), plus the when-not condition (after acceptance). It does not name an alternative tool for the post-acceptance case, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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