Retract Annotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is destructive, that it is a soft delete (retracted_at, implying recoverability), that dry_run=true previews without committing, and that a human-supplied approval_token is required. It omits return behavior and any reversibility/undo details, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core facts are front-loaded, but the destructive/approval-token information is stated twice (once in the opening paragraph, again in the 'Effect' line), which is dead weight rather than reinforcement.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs before calling: destructive semantics, a safe preview path, and an auth prerequisite. It could still say whether retraction is undoable and what the call returns.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains the two non-obvious parameters (dry_run as a preview switch, approval_token as human-supplied) well beyond the bare schema. annotation_id is left unexplained, but it is self-evident from the tool's purpose.

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 and resource ('Soft-delete an ... annotation') and clarifies the mechanism by naming the concrete effect ('stamps retracted_at'). An agent can distinguish this from annotate_metric or list_annotations without opening a 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?

The qualifier 'erroneous or outdated' gives a clear condition for when this tool applies, which is real usage guidance. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g., annotate_metric for corrections) or state when not to retract, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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