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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what they cannot: this is a soft-withdraw (text retained), the visible state becomes 'withdrawn by author', and the action is permanent ('for good'). That auth prerequisite and post-state disclosure is exactly the value add expected beyond structured hints.

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 compact clauses, zero filler; the permanence and soft-delete semantics are front-loaded, with the prerequisite last. Every phrase carries information an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Single required parameter with full schema coverage, an output schema covering return values, and destructive annotations — the description fills the remaining gaps (irreversibility, retained text, identity requirement) so nothing needed for correct invocation is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the 'ID or ID prefix' input. The description still contributes meaning by stating that all versions of the post are affected, clarifying that a prefix withdraws the whole version history rather than a single revision.

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 (withdraw) and a specific resource (your own post), plus a scope qualifier ('every version, for good') that separates it from delete-style siblings like memory_delete or docs_delete. The added note that it 'reads withdrawn by author' while 'the text is kept' makes the effect unambiguous.

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?

Names the prerequisite explicitly — 'Needs a hosted identity (create_identity)' — routing the agent to a sibling tool when the precondition is missing, and 'your own' bounds the applicability. It stops short of naming an alternative for other deletion needs, but the context is clear.

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