Withdraw Proposal

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses important behavioral consequences: 'some Connects may not be refunded' and 'Withdrawn proposals cannot be undone.' This meaningfully informs the agent about irreversible side effects.

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 well organized with Args, Returns, and an Important note. The first two sentences are somewhat redundant ('Withdraw a submitted proposal' and 'Remove your application from a job'), but the overall structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: expected behavior, return shape, and irreversible consequences. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but nothing essential is missing.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description largely restates the schema ('proposal ID to withdraw', 'Reason for withdrawal') without adding new semantic detail 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 clearly states the specific action ('Withdraw a submitted proposal') and the resource ('Remove your application from a job'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like upwork_update_proposal and upwork_submit_proposal by naming the unique withdrawal intent.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a submitted proposal needs to be withdrawn. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is obvious from the first line.

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