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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden, and it excels. It discloses that the operation is non-destructive (original content remains), that the finding is marked as withdrawn, that retries are safe (idempotent), and that withdrawing is not the same as disproving. These are critical behavioral traits beyond mere schema, ensuring the agent understands side effects and semantics.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and precondition, the second discloses the non-destructive outcome and labeling, the third adds idempotency and semantic nuance. No fluff, all high-signal.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the action, the precondition (authorship), side effects (visibility and labeling), idempotency, and the crucial distinction from disproving. An agent has all necessary information to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It directly explains 'reason' as the justification for withdrawal and 'id' implicitly as the finding identifier. It also adds meaning by clarifying that the reason is recorded and visible. Adequate but could be more explicit about the 'reason' format (e.g., is it a string of free text?) though minLength/maxLength hint suggests that.

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 states a specific verb ('Retract support'), a resource ('finding you authored'), and a key qualifier ('with a reason'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'publish_finding' and 'search_findings' by focusing on withdrawal of support rather than creation or search. The phrase 'you authored' is crucial and specific, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 implies when to use: when you need to retract support for a finding you authored, and provides clear exclusions: 'Original content remains visible and labeled withdrawn' and 'this does not claim the finding is disproven.' This prevents misuse, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other actions like editing or deleting findings.

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