delete_rfi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: tombstone semantics (record stays, number reserved, register prints a gap), link handling (markups keep note, lose link), journaling, and reversibility via undo_last. This is well beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scoping within the first clause, and most sentences earn their place by disclosing behavior. Slightly verbose with rhetorical flourish ('would be a lie'), but not wasteful enough to hurt.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations are absent but fully compensated by the description's coverage of tombstoning, links, journaling, and undo. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Record id from create_rfi or list_rfis'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax or format beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Withdraw an RFI') and immediately distinguishes the operation from related siblings by noting that an answered question is 'closed in the register, not deleted' (i.e., resolve_rfi vs delete_rfi). An agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('a question you raised in error') and when not ('a question the architect answered is closed in the register'), effectively naming the alternative behavior. Nothing is left to inference.

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