Retract a claim

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, and the description goes further with concrete append-only semantics: the original line stays byte for byte, the retraction is a new event, and no parameter removes anything. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express on their own.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the immutability guarantee. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

A mutation tool with annotations and an output schema needs little more, and the immutability disclosure closes the biggest risk of misinterpretation. The remaining gap is the superseded_by parameter's role in distinguishing supersession from retraction, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the required reason and by. The description restates that a reason and author are attached but adds no syntax or semantics for superseded_by (e.g. that it must exist in the same project), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Mark a claim as retracted') with the required evidence named (reason, author). It distinguishes itself from a hypothetical delete tool, but never contrasts with actual siblings like facts.recall.assert or facts.recall.history, which the agent must choose between.

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 is implied by 'Mark a claim as retracted' and the note that there is no delete tool, so the agent knows this is the only removal-adjacent path. However, it never says when to retract versus supersede, nor when to use the optional superseded_by versus a plain retraction.

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