withdraw_question

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 contribute one real effect: the question is removed from the operator's inbox. However, it leaves open whether the withdrawal is reversible, whether the required reason is surfaced to the operator, and whether any permission or state prerequisite applies.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the condition, with no filler. The second sentence is a distinct fact (inbox effect) rather than padding, though it is terse enough that it borders on under-specification.

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 explained, and the ownership constraint is covered. Still, for a two-required-parameter mutation with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description should say more about id provenance and reason handling than it does.

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 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in structured data and the description must compensate — but it does not mention 'id' (whose id, how to obtain it) or 'reason' (what it is used for, who sees it). Only the colloquial "your open questions" hints at valid id values.

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 (withdraw) and resource (question) plus the ownership/state constraint (one of your open questions), so the agent knows exactly what is being acted on. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling withdraw_alert, which the agent must infer from the noun alone.

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?

"because you resolved it yourself" gives a usage motivation, implying this is for self-resolved questions rather than questions still needing an answer. It never names alternatives (e.g., that list_my_questions supplies the id, or when to prefer check_answers), so routing is only implied.

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