nexus_retract_revision

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds the ownership requirement, the 'published' state prerequisite, and the return shape ('JSON {success} or an error string'), which are useful. It does not disclose deeper consequences such as whether retraction is reversible or what exactly happens to the revision.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a return-value note. There is no filler or repetition of schema content. It could arguably be a single sentence, but the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

With annotations covering destructive/readOnly/idempotent behavior and an output schema available, the description provides the essential preconditions ('published', 'must own it'). However, it omits any mention of how retraction interacts with other revision operations or what happens to the collection after retraction. For a destructive tool, a bit more lifecycle context would make it complete.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage: 'Retraction reason.' and 'Revision ID.' The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about these parameters, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Retract a published collection revision' with a specific verb and resource. It adds meaningful qualifiers ('must own it', 'published') that help an agent understand the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling nexus_discard_revision, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives a prerequisite ('must own it') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexus_discard_revision or nexus_publish_revision. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or explanation of how this relates to the collection revision lifecycle.

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