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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive-ish effect (content blanked, drops from public counts) and the auth requirement (needs a hub key). It stops short of saying whether withdrawal is reversible or whether blanked content is ever recoverable.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the effect before the scoping behavior, then the auth requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 two-parameter, zero-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, defaults, per-response override, and auth. It could go further on reversibility and what a successful call returns, but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the semantics (default = all active responses for one survey; response_id = a single one) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (your Survey Booth responses), and states the concrete effect: content is blanked and the response drops out of public counts. This clearly distinguishes it from hub_survey_submit and hub_survey_results among the siblings.

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 states the default scope (all your active responses for one survey) and how to narrow it (pass response_id for a single one), which is the key usage decision. It does not, however, call out when not to use it or reference a sibling as an alternative.

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