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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the text is preserved as struck-through memory and the note is shown un-struck. It also discloses the BILLING_INACTIVE / MONTHLY_CAP_REACHED refusal behavior and the tellHuman field, which the annotations could never convey.

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 core purpose and alternative are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every section carries operational value. The billing-refusal paragraph is somewhat long and emphatic, but it earns its place by preventing a costly agent mistake.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the response's tellHuman field in the failure case. For a two-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety, this is complete enough to call correctly.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that the note is displayed un-struck and that the comment id comes from list_comments. This goes beyond the schema and helps an agent supply correct values.

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 ('Retract a comment') and immediately clarifies the semantics ('strike it through instead of deleting — the text stays as memory'), which distinguishes it from a delete operation. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly contrasts with deletion and states the prerequisite of a note explaining why the comment is no longer valid, plus detailed guidance on handling billing refusals. It stops short of naming a sibling tool as the alternative path, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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