withdraw_from_simul

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate if this is a destructive action, requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., affecting game state or notifications), or what happens upon withdrawal (e.g., error if not in simul). The description is minimal and offers no operational insights.

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 extremely concise ('Withdraw from a simul'), which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary details for a tool likely involving user interaction or state changes.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and the tool's potential complexity (withdrawal from an event), the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'simulId' clearly documented as 'ID of the simul'. The description does not add further meaning beyond this, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 action ('withdraw from') and resource ('a simul'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'withdraw' entails operationally (e.g., leaving as a participant, canceling as an organizer) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'withdraw_from_arena' or 'withdraw_from_swiss', making it vague in context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must be in a simul), exclusions, or related tools like 'join_simul' or 'cancel_challenge', leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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