withdraw_paper

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

With no annotations, the description only reveals the status constraint. It does not mention effects (e.g., irreversible, permissions needed) or return behavior, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 sentences with no waste. Directly states the action and the key condition.

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, single-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and constraint. However, it could be more complete by noting post-withdrawal state or reversibility.

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 description adds no significant value beyond the schema for the single parameter. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the action (withdraw) and the resource (paper), and adds a specific status constraint that distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_paper or revise_paper.

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 explicitly states the valid statuses for using the tool, which guides when to use it. While it does not mention alternatives, the constraint is clear and sufficient for typical use.

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