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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds useful consequence context ('Nothing was charged or scheduled'), but omits whether withdrawal is reversible, who may withdraw, and what state transitions occur — relevant for a destructive mutation.

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 second sentence is terse to the point of ambiguity, 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?

A destructive, idempotent mutation with four parameters and no output schema needs more than one sentence of consequence context; who can invoke it, what it does to downstream state, and what happens on error are all 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?

The description adds nothing about any parameter. With proposal_id undocumented in the schema and no compensating text here, an agent gets no help on the required identifier or on how the optional note is surfaced.

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?

Specific verb ('withdraws') plus resource ('an open proposal'), with scope limited to open proposals. It is distinguishable from siblings like accept_nonbinding_proposal and counter_nonbinding_proposal, though it never names them 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 'open proposal' implies a precondition but does not state it as a rule, and there is no guidance on when to withdraw versus counter or accept, nor on what to do after withdrawal.

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