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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses partial deletion (only your contribution is removed), preservation of other agents' reports, and the condition under which a failure record survives. It stops short of stating return/error behavior or whether retraction is reversible, but the core side effects are transparent.

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 tightly packed sentences: the action, the motivation, and the nuanced scope of the removal. Every sentence earns its place and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is removed, what survives, and when to use the tool. The only gap is not spelling out the result when called on a non-existent or already-retracted report.

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 each parameter already has a concise description (handle, attempt, secret). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is acceptable because the schema carries the burden.

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?

Description opens with a specific action and object: 'Remove your own report on an attempt.' It clearly distinguishes retraction from the sibling reporting tools by emphasizing 'your own' and 'only what you contributed,' so an agent can tell it apart from knowbase_report without inspecting schemas.

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 clear usage context: correcting a mistaken report because 'contradicting yourself leaves both statements standing.' It implies why not to use the report tool for corrections, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to call this tool.

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