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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: eligibility by status, required role, and an ENTERPRISE+ feature gate. It omits what the CR's resulting status is and whether the action is reversible.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action + valid states, authorization rule, feature gate. Front-loaded with the action; nothing wasted.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs before calling: valid states, permission requirements, and licensing. The main gap is the post-withdrawal state/error behavior for ineligible statuses.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no detail about changeRequestId (format, where to obtain it). The name is largely self-explanatory, so this is minimally adequate rather than deficient.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Withdraw') and resource ('change request') and narrows scope to three eligible states (DRAFT, SUBMITTED, UNDER_REVIEW). This lets an agent distinguish it from submit_change_request, implement_change_request, and get_change_request without opening any 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?

Gives concrete preconditions (only these three statuses) and authorization context (requester or project PM). It does not point to an alternative for the cases it excludes (e.g., what to do with an already-approved CR), so it stops short of explicit when-not/alternative routing.

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