knowledge_zurueckziehen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses that the text is irretrievably lost with no backup, that the row remains for traceability, that the node leaves search and recall, and that an empty grund causes rejection with no changes.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: core effect, audit retention, search impact, reversibility, comparison with permanent deletion, and validation behavior. It is front-loaded with the main outcome and contains no filler or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 destructive six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is unusually complete. It covers what changes, what persists, what disappears, how reversal works, which alternative is unavailable, and the key validation rule, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent invoking it.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters and the node_id/path exclusivity. The description adds extra meaning by stating that grund is mandatory and that an empty grund is rejected with no changes, which is a behavioral constraint not fully captured in the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Withdraw a node') and enumerates exactly what is cleared versus what is kept, making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from related operations like knowledge_freigeben and the permanent endgueltig_entfernen.py, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling 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 description does not literally say 'use when...' but provides strong routing context: it clarifies that this tool empties content while preserving the audit row, that knowledge_freigeben restores only visibility, and that permanent deletion is reserved for a separate human-only tool. This is sufficient practical guidance for choosing it over alternatives.

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