Retract a ModDB release

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the actual consequence: the release stays visible with a retraction notice, becomes non-editable, and cannot be undone by authors. It also surfaces the confirm:true guard, which is critical for a destructive mutation.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect; every clause (visibility, edit lock, confirm guard) carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential outcome and irreversibility. Minor omissions remain, such as what a successful call returns and whether the retraction is reversible by moderators (it only says 'by authors').

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the confirm default and the mod identifier formats. The description reinforces reason and confirm but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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States a precise verb (retract) plus resource (release) and clarifies the semantic with 'mark as broken/withdrawn', which no sibling tool (update_release, delete_comment, etc.) covers. An agent can distinguish it from update_release without opening either 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 a strong selection condition: irreversible, requires confirm:true, release becomes uneditable. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative (e.g. 'use update_release to change metadata instead'), so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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