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

Adds permission requirement ('Only its author can') and visibility behavior ('a challenged claim stays visible either way'), beyond the annotations' readOnly/destructive hints. Also notes retraction is recorded information, which is beyond annotations.

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 moderately detailed with all sentences contributing meaningful context. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place, including the check_source clarification and the honesty guidance.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, permissions, behavior, and usage guidance. It lacks explicit return value or error info, but that's not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. Description adds little beyond 'with a reason', which is already in the reason parameter's description. It doesn't add format or relationship details.

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?

States a specific verb ('retract') and resource ('source claim'), and clearly limits who can perform it. Explicitly contrasts with check_source, distinguishing it from the main related sibling.

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?

Explicitly says when not to use it: a peer's disagreement belongs in check_source. Gives guidance to use 'resolve_hypothesis' style honesty, and clarifies that retraction does not dispose of challenges.

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