retract_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the retraction is 'explicit' and under an 'immutable entry ID', suggesting permanence, but does not disclose the implications of retraction, such as whether it makes the entry inaccessible, deletes it, or affects related assets. The agent is left with incomplete information about the consequences.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It lacks unnecessary fluff, but its brevity contributes to the lack of detail.

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?

Given the complexity of a retraction action and the low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior of the retraction (e.g., visibility, reversibility), nor does it address the 'reason' parameter, nor any expected output beyond the output schema. The description fails to provide a complete picture for a tool with potential side effects.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains the entry_id is used as the immutable ID, but says nothing about the 'reason' parameter—its purpose, format, or whether it is required for retraction. This leaves the agent guessing about the optional reason field.

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 the tool publishes an explicit retraction under an immutable entry ID. This clearly indicates the action (retraction) and the resource (entry), distinguishing it from update or unpublish siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention the verb 'retract' or differentiate from correct_entry.

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 implies the tool is for retracting an entry, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'unpublish_entry' or 'correct_entry'. It lacks details on when a retraction is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other actions.

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