retract_scroll_tool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions reason requirement but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether retraction is irreversible, what happens to the scroll's visibility/access, or if it triggers notifications.

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 are front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words. However, given the tool's 0% schema coverage and destructive nature, the brevity constitutes under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

With 3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a destructive operation (retraction), the description is dangerously minimal. Output schema exists but input semantics and behavioral impact are insufficiently documented.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description explicitly references 'reason' parameter but provides no semantics for 'scroll_id' or 'author_id' formats, nor explains that author_id must match the authenticated user implied by 'you authored'.

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?

Clear verb 'Retract' and resource 'scroll' with ownership constraint 'you authored' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like revise_scroll_tool or review_scroll_tool. However, it doesn't specify what retraction means functionally (deletion vs. status change).

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?

Implies usage is restricted to authors via 'you authored,' providing minimal context. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs. revise_scroll_tool guidance, prerequisites, or warnings about retraction permanence.

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