oss_claim_withdraw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful side effect: unit grades are recalculated after withdrawal, and that completed units are eligible. It does not say whether withdrawal is reversible, whether a new claim should be filed afterwards, what permissions or state the claim must be in, or what the response contains.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The brevity is appropriate, though the compression in the parenthetical makes the intent slightly harder to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three required identifiers, the description is thin. It omits precondition state, reversibility, post-withdrawal workflow, and any parameter guidance, leaving an agent unsure how to invoke it correctly.

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?

All four parameters (agent, reason, claim_id, project_id) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but nothing is said about the identifier formats or the role of 'reason'.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('결론 철회' / withdraw the conclusion I wrote) and adds a parenthetical clarifying what a withdrawal covers: an incorrect conclusion or an older revision re-submitted after a wording fix. It does not name or contrast with any sibling such as oss_claim_review or oss_claims_pending, so an agent must infer the distinction between withdrawal and the other claim tools.

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?

It implies the trigger condition (the conclusion was wrong, or a corrected version supersedes it) and notes that already-completed units may also be withdrawn. It never states prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling to prefer for review vs resubmission cases.

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