withdraw_condition_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the underlying condition is left untouched and that the action can be re-seated via undo_last, which is genuine reversibility context. It omits permission requirements, error behavior for non-pending proposals, and whether the drop is permanent.

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 terse sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the undo_last recovery note. The stray issue reference (#365) is the only noise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single parameter is fully covered by the schema. The remaining gap is behavioral: what states the proposal must be in and what happens on failure.

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% and the single proposal_id parameter is already documented in the schema (including its source in propose_condition_edit or takeoff_summary). The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb ('drop') plus a precise resource ('a pending condition-edit proposal') that an agent can distinguish from propose_condition_edit and revise_proposal. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling withdraw_proposal, which sounds like it could overlap.

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 word 'pending' implies the applicable state, and it names undo_last as the recovery path, so usage is implied rather than spelled out. It never states when to prefer this over withdraw_proposal or what happens if the proposal was already applied.

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