aps_withdraw_provisional

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the ownership requirement, the promoted-statement restriction, and the exact signature payload format (canonicalize({action:'withdraw', statement_id})). It does not mention reversibility or return behavior, but the disclosed constraints are substantial and actionable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds distinct information. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential context for invocation: the action, constraints, and signature requirement. With no output schema, it omits return/error behavior, but the schema handles parameter documentation and the constraints are well-articulated. Moderately complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, but the description adds meaningful semantics by specifying the canonicalization payload for the author_signature and clarifying the author-ownership requirement for the statement parameter. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'author withdraws their own provisional statement.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like aps_create_provisional and aps_promote_statement by specifying the withdrawal action and the restriction against promoted statements.

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?

Provides clear context (author withdrawing own provisional statement) and an explicit exclusion ('Already-promoted statements cannot be withdrawn'). Does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the when-not is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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