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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the precondition that withdrawal is only possible pre-review, but says nothing about irreversibility, required authorization (the 'token' param), or what happens on failure.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste; nothing redundant. It is efficient but so brief that the brevity comes at the cost of detail rather than enabling it.

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?

For a destructive, multi-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin — it never explains the identity/versioning inputs or the outcome of the withdrawal.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters (extensionId, version, token), so the description carries the full burden and mentions none of them. An agent gets no hint about why a version number or token is needed to withdraw.

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 and resource ('Withdraw your proposed extension') plus a state constraint ('before steward review'), which cleanly separates it from extensions_propose and extensions_list. It lacks only an explicit sibling reference.

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 'before steward review' implicitly tells the agent the valid window for calling this tool, but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to use instead (e.g., if review has already started).

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