Withdraw a contribution

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, so the important addition is the mechanism: it comments '/withdraw' on the GitHub issue, which closes it. That tells the agent the effect is public and visible on GitHub and that closure follows, which is real value beyond the structured hints. It doesn't say whether the person can reverse it, what happens on failure, or which auth is needed, so it isn't a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then the consequence. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 two-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description supplies the essential picture: consent requirement, timing window and the concrete side effect of closing the GitHub issue. It lacks failure behaviour, reversibility and auth notes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 both 'id' (with its C-0007 / #7 pattern) and 'reason' are already documented in the schema. The description mentions neither the id nor the reason field, and only weakly hints at reason through 'the person's words'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 your contribution') and adds the precondition 'before a final decision', which separates it from revise_contribution or submit_contribution in practice. It never names a sibling explicitly or contrasts with one, so it stops short of the top mark.

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?

'Call it only when the person has said so' is an explicit consent gate, and 'before a final decision' sets a clear timing window that implies a when-not (after a final decision). It stops short of 5 because it never points the agent at the alternative action to take when withdrawal is inappropriate.

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