Withdraw request

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the pre-write read and state/requester check, that midPoint enforces cancel authorization, the write-gate respect, the absence of a comment, and a post-write read-back to confirm closure. The name-mismatch refusal is a concrete failure mode an agent can plan around.

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 action and scope are front-loaded, but the prose is dense and several clauses are only tangentially useful to invocation, such as "Uses plain REST with no comment" and the closing general instruction about display names. The long OID/name-matching sentence is hard to parse in one pass.

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 three-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers authorization, precondition checks, refusal conditions, write-gate behavior, and post-write verification. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: userName and roleName are midPoint unique-name attributes (logins) rather than display names, they must correspond to the objects the OIDs point to, and a mismatch aborts the call. That explains why the confirmation parameters exist at all, though it does not clarify the empty-string case the schema mentions.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource with scope: "Withdraw your own open approval request." That cleanly separates it from sibling mutators like decide_work_item, claim_work_item, and request_role. It never names an explicit alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is clear: it applies only to the caller's own open request, requires name/OID agreement, and is refused otherwise. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to a sibling tool for the case where the request is not yours, which keeps it below 5.

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