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

Goes beyond the annotations by stating that attributed history is preserved (not a hard delete of record), naming the required auth scope (community:comment), and giving actionable retry guidance. It reinforces the idempotentHint with concrete action ('preserve request_id and payload on retries') and implies an optimistic-concurrency precondition, though it doesn't say what a revision mismatch does.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action before prerequisites and retry semantics. Efficient with little waste, though the terse phrasing borders on telegraphic.

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?

Covers purpose, auth prerequisite, history retention, and retry behavior for a destructive+idempotent mutation with no output schema. It omits the observable outcome (tombstoned vs removed) and failure behavior on stale revisions, which matters for a destructive operation.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It adds meaning for two of three params indirectly ('at its expected revision' frames expected_revision as a concurrency guard; 'preserve request_id' implies a dedup/idempotency key), but comment_id format is unexplained and the referenced 'payload' is not even a parameter, which could confuse.

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 (retract) plus resource (own comment) and scope constraint (own, at expected revision), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like retract_review, retract_vote, and edit_comment. The clause 'preserves the attributed history' further separates it from edit-style operations.

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 implies usage via 'own comment' and the prerequisite 'Requires the connected identity and community:comment', which is useful selection context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., versus edit_comment or retract_review), leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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