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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two key traits: withdrawal is limited to unbooked requests, and after withdrawal "Shops can no longer reply," indicating a meaningful downstream side effect. It does not state permissions, whether the action is reversible, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if the request is already booked.

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 two short sentences. The action and eligibility condition are front-loaded, and the second sentence explains the consequence without any 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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, for a mutation with no annotations, it should say more about prerequisites, error conditions such as trying to withdraw a booked request, and reversibility. It covers the core gate and effect but leaves important behavioral context unstated.

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 schema has one required parameter, request_id, with 0% description coverage. The tool description never mentions request_id, its expected UUID format, or how to obtain the identifier, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare schema field name.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Withdraw a request," and adds the scope condition "you have not booked." It distinguishes the action from sibling operations like homeowner_getRequest, homeowner_listRequests, and homeowner_createRequest, though it does not explicitly contrast with requests_withdraw or other cancellation-like tools.

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 phrase "a request you have not booked" gives an implicit eligibility condition for use, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as requests_withdraw, and no stated prerequisites beyond the embedded condition.

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