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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the non-destructive nature ('kept, marked as withdrawn'), the two-call confirmation flow for another author's proposal, and the consequence of leaving corrections only in personal notes. This is consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, with no contradiction.

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?

The description is long but every sentence carries essential decision-relevant information: scope, exclusions, cross-author behavior, non-deletion semantics, and the follow-up tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers edge cases in a readable order 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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and a subtle non-destructive withdrawal flow, the description covers all important context: when withdrawal is allowed, how the other-author stop works, what happens to the proposal, and what to do with the corrected version. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 75%, so the schema already documents why, memory, and other_author_confirmed in detail. The description reinforces the flow around other_author_confirmed but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: take back a pending PROPOSAL. It sharply distinguishes this from deletion ('This is not deletion: the proposal is kept, marked as withdrawn') and from other tools like arroway_remember, so an agent can tell exactly what arroway_withdraw is for.

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?

It states when to use it ('pending PROPOSAL that turned out to be wrong'), when not to use it ('a memory the human already sanctioned is theirs, and changing it goes through them'), and what to do instead for durable corrections ('write it with arroway_remember too'). This gives an agent both positive and negative selection criteria.

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