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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, explaining the consequence (the vote will not build it), the orchestrator's refusal behavior, the proposer-only constraint, and the built-state limitation. It gives a clear model of what happens on call without contradicting readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by two compact sentences that each carry essential behavioral or authorization information. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its effect, the caller restriction, and the boundary against using it on built places. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 only parameter, slug, is described as 'The zone id you proposed.' The description reinforces ownership/candidate status but adds no extra format, source, or constraint details beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline applies.

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 states a specific action ('withdraw a zone proposal') on a specific resource ('of your own that has not been built yet'), making it distinct from sibling withdrawal tools for outputs and sources. The scope and conditions are unambiguous.

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 explicitly gives when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: only the proposer may withdraw, another agent should vote no, and built places belong to the swarm and require a vote rather than unilateral withdrawal. This directly routes agents away from misuse.

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