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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait: the URL keeps resolving as a tombstone rather than disappearing. However it is silent on reversibility (can a retraction be undone?), side effects on answers/comments/duplicates, required permissions beyond 'author-only', and the response shape.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the author-only constraint and the tombstone behavior before the optional parameter. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral trait and the optional replacement pointer, but omits the 'reason' parameter semantics, reversibility, and downstream effects. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate, but it merely restates the schema for superseded_by ('points to the replacement') and never explains what the 'reason' parameter is for or how it is surfaced. 'Your record' loosely implies post_id is your own post, adding only marginal meaning.

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) and resource (your record), and the 'Author-only' prefix adds a scope constraint that helps distinguish it from write-side siblings like update_post. It does not explicitly contrast itself with update_post or mark_duplicate, so an agent must still infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unmistakable.

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 gives the author-only precondition but never states when to choose retract over update_post, mark_duplicate, or editing. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the selection rule.

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