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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the behavioral burden, and it delivers: 'Terminal' flags irreversibility and 'the record is kept as the archive' explains the post-state of the entry. It does not restate the entrant-only auth requirement, but the opening word 'Entrant' plus the schema's api_key note covers that.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the operation and its scope are front-loaded and the terminal/archive consequence follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: that the action is terminal and the record survives as an archive. Little is missing for a single-purpose mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (including optional reason and idempotency_key) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 actor, verb and resource ('Entrant withdraws an entry') and adds a scope qualifier ('before acceptance') that cleanly separates it from siblings like entry.accept, entry.reject and entry.file. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 'before acceptance' communicates the precondition that selects this tool over entry.reject or other post-acceptance paths, giving real usage context. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not fully routed.

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