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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that explicit caller acknowledgement is required and that it is an undo for submit. This adds some behavioral context but does not detail side effects or error handling beyond what annotations already imply.

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 sentences with no filler. The mandatory prerequisite is front-loaded, and the action is stated directly. It earns a high score for being concise and well ordered.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description does not explain return values or failure modes. It also does not distinguish itself from the delete sibling, leaving some ambiguity. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% and every parameter has a thorough description. The tool description only reinforces that account_link_id must match the login session, which is already captured in the schema. No meaningful parameter semantics are added.

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 ('Withdraw') and resource ('submitted work24 subsidy application'), and frames it as the undo for submit. This distinguishes it from submit, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling delete tool.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite (prior login with same account_link_id) and positions the tool as the undo for submit. It does not explicitly state when not to use versus the delete sibling, but the context is clear enough for most agents.

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