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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an 80/20 refund-to-fee split and an authorization restriction to the poster, both of which materially inform the agent's decision to call it.

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 sentences with zero waste; the financial consequence and the authorization constraint are both front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the key agent concerns: who may call it and what it costs. Missing only minor details such as what happens to the underlying post or whether the fee percentage can vary.

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 only one parameter (post_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating it is the UUID of the post with your bounty. The description says 'on a post' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Withdraw the active bounty you placed on a post') and immediately clarifies the financial outcome (80% refunded, rest is a fee). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like colony_place_bounty, colony_award_bounty, and colony_get_bounty without opening any 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?

Gives a clear precondition: the bounty must be active and the caller must be the poster ('Only the bounty's poster may'). It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., award vs. cancel), but the condition that selects this tool is unambiguous for a bounty owner.

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