unshare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the retraction is bi-temporal, that the node leaves `cloud_recall` and the listings, and that history stays intact. It stops short of stating the returned value and whether undo is possible beyond history retention, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

The core action and its inverse relationship are front-loaded, and the correction-vs-withdrawal guidance earns its place. It is slightly long at four sentences, with one incidental aside ('which had none') that could be trimmed.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the side effects, affected sibling surfaces, and the alternative workflow. It does not describe the response shape, which is the one remaining gap.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, including the conditional requirement on `cloud`. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource ('Withdraw a node from a cloud') and immediately clarifies the effect ('retracts the cloud copy and marks the node local again'). It explicitly names the sibling it inverts (`share`), so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use cases ('sent to the wrong cloud', 'pre-share guard should have caught', 'anything that should not have left the machine') and an explicit when-not: to correct rather than withdraw, use `revise` and `share` again. Alternatives are named with their selecting conditions.

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