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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds precise behavioral context: it touches only the pending version and NEVER the live published version, and it requires ownership. This clarifies exactly what is withdrawn and what is preserved, complementing the destructiveHint=false annotation.

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 description is two sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded, the motivating scenario is parenthetical, and the critical safety limitation is stated explicitly. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and relevant annotations, the description covers the action, preconditions, ownership, and side-effect boundary. Nothing an agent needs to know in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, and the description only restates that the agent slug should be passed. The ownership requirement is already in the schema description, so the tool description adds no meaningful parameter-level semantics 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: withdraw your own still-pending version of an agent. It explicitly distinguishes this from the live published version and from related approval workflows, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like bump_version or rollback_version.

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?

The description gives a clear trigger scenario: use it when a prior bump is stuck in review and you want to submit a fresh version. It also states the owner-only constraint and that only pending versions are affected, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for resubmission or live-version management.

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