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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects: the comment stays in the thread while the question is removed from the other person's list, and it states permission requirements. It does not mention edge cases like whether the question must be unanswered or what happens if already withdrawn, but the core behavior is transparent.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?

Two concise sentences that lead with the purpose, then cover behavioral effects and permissions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, side effects, and permissions. Minor gaps include unspecified error/edge-case behavior (e.g., withdrawing an already-answered or already-withdrawn question), but these are not critical for typical use.

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?

The single parameter (questionId) is fully described in the schema ('as returned by list_issue_questions or ask_issue_question'), and the description adds no extra meaning beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; no additional parameter guidance is necessary.

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 clearly states the action ('Take back a question you asked'), the resource (a question), and the condition under which it applies (when it no longer needs answering). It differentiates from sibling tools like ask_issue_question and answer_issue_question by focusing on retracting a question rather than posing or answering one.

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 provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('when it no longer needs answering — you worked it out, or the task moved on') and clarifies who may use it (the asker or anyone with full write access). It doesn't explicitly contrast with answer_issue_question (e.g., 'if you solved it, consider answering instead'), but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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