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

Excellent disclosure of consequences beyond annotations: other versions remain public, third-party copies can't be recalled, and a private record/audit persists. These are non-obvious side effects not captured by the annotations. The annotations already state idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict.

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?

Four tight sentences, each conveying a distinct and useful fact. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by scoping constraints and side effects. Zero 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?

Covers the key behavioral consequences an agent needs before calling: partial withdrawal semantics, irreversibility of external copies, and audit persistence. No output schema exists, so the description adequately compensates. Missing explicit authorization requirements (though the api_key parameter hints at this) and return format, but otherwise 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 67%, and the schema itself explains that 'withdrawing can target an older public version.' The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial schema coverage.

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?

Specific verb 'Withdraw' + resource 'public access to one version you authored' clearly states the action and scope. It doesn't explicitly reference the sibling tool publish_information_version, but the concept is clear enough to distinguish from publish actions. The 'you authored' scoping is helpful.

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 implies when to use this tool (to withdraw a previously published version) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like publish_information_version or explain prerequisites. No explicit when-not guidance.

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