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

The description directly contradicts the annotations: it explicitly claims idempotency ('Idempotent: a record that was already withdrawn comes back ok with changed: false', 'a retry after a timeout is safe'), while the annotations set idempotentHint to false. Per the scoring rule, a contradiction with annotations forces a score of 1. Otherwise the description is rich with behavioral detail, but this contradiction is disqualifying.

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 long and somewhat repetitive, restating consequences already in the title and over-explaining ownership. However, given the consequential and irreversible nature of the operation, the detail is largely justified and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every major point contributes to safe usage, though tighter editing would improve it.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explains the important return fields ('found', 'changed', 'freed_slot', 'counts', 'message'), covers idempotent retry behavior, addresses ambiguous error semantics for nonexistent ids, and details edge cases like already-withdrawn records and approved submissions. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: it explains the two valid identity paths (signed-in identity versus submission_id plus one-time claim_token), clarifies that a signed-in submitter needs neither token, and reinforces that submission_id and claim_token must be used together. This helps an agent choose the correct parameter combination for the caller's situation.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it withdraws the human's own submission to a form. It also sharply distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing that only the submitter can perform this action, and that operators, reviewers, and admin permissions cannot. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous even among many form-related 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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool, when not to use it, and who is allowed to call it. It states that operators/reviewers/admins cannot withdraw on someone's behalf, that withdrawal is not a way to redo an application, that the agent must confirm with the human before calling, and explains the implications for approved submissions. This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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