agora_retract_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: the ownership/permission boundary that causes a foreign-claim retraction to fail. However, it says nothing about whether retraction is reversible, what happens to attached evidence, or whether any confirmation or auth step is required.

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, with the ownership scope front-loaded ahead of the failure condition. Every clause earns its place.

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. For a single-parameter mutation the description is nearly sufficient, with the main remaining gaps being irreversibility/side effects on linked evidence.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does not compensate. The description constrains the parameter indirectly by stating the claim must belong to this agent, but it adds no format or sourcing guidance for claim_id beyond what the schema's title implies.

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 (retract) plus resource (Claim) and immediately scopes it to the calling agent's own claims. The ownership constraint distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like supersede_claim, get_claim, and list_claims without the agent needing to open 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 clear use context (retracting one's own claim) and an explicit when-not condition (fails on another agent's claim), which prevents a costly misuse. It stops short of naming an alternative for the case where the agent wants to replace rather than withdraw a claim, e.g. supersede_claim.

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