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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds important nuance: the comment remains in the thread while the question stops counting on the recipient's list. It also states who is authorized to perform the withdrawal, going well beyond the annotation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and condition, then efficiently explains the retained comment and access rule. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation context.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage condition, behavioral effect, and authorization. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as the question id returned by list_issue_questions or ask_issue_question. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: taking back an issue question. It also clarifies the effect relative to sibling actions like asking or answering, so an agent can distinguish withdrawal from responding.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: when the question no longer needs answering because it was worked out or the task moved on. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the condition is strong enough to guide selection.

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