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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral caveat not in the annotations ('Cannot recall external copies'), but leaves the key question — what happens to the local record, and whether withdrawal is reversible — unanswered.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope statement leads and the caveat follows. Slightly telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and fully undocumented parameters, the description covers the irreversibility angle but omits local-record outcome, auth/permission needs, and parameter meaning. Adequate but with clear gaps relative to the tool's risk level.

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?

Both required parameters (key, record_id) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about them. It does not clarify whether 'key' is an auth credential or a lookup handle, nor how record_id identifies a version set for 'all versions'.

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 (withdraw) and resource (learning record) with scope qualifiers ('both purposes', 'all versions'), which distinguishes it from siblings like save_learning and read_learning. However, 'both purposes' is unexplained jargon, so an agent can't be fully certain what state the record is being moved out of.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as save_learning, read_learning, or revoke_key. There is no preconditions or when-not-to-use guidance, only an implicit 'if you want to withdraw'.

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