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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still earns credit by adding the irreversibility warning ('Cannot be undone') and the recovery path (a new confirmation is required to re-publish). It does not cover permissions or the failure mode for an unknown/stale intentCode.

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 clauses with zero waste; the immediate effect is front-loaded and the irreversibility warning follows. Every sentence carries information the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destructive effect and the re-publish consequence. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if the intentCode is invalid or already withdrawn — relevant given openWorldHint=true.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage and a documented pattern plus provenance ('returned by intent_publish_intent'). The description adds nothing about intentCode, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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 ('Stops the intent') plus the immediate scope ('at the portal'). The effect clause ('nothing more is sent to the user') and the reference to publishing again distinguish it well from get/list/publish siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'Stops the intent at the portal immediately' implies when to use it (to halt forwarding), and 'publishing again needs a new confirmation' hints at the follow-up path. There is no explicit contrast with the alternatives (get_intent, list_matches, publish_intent) or a stated precondition beyond the required intentCode.

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