Retract a fact

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the fact stays in history marked as retracted, that retracting a retraction restores the original, and how to handle the receipt link. None of this is derivable from readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false, and it materially changes how an agent should report and retry.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, and each carries distinct information (when, what to pass, lifecycle behavior, receipt handling). Slight redundancy in the 'give its hash and a reason' instruction keeps it from a 5.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing lifecycle and reversal semantics plus the receipt-link handling, which is exactly the gap an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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 hash, reason, entity_id and operation_id fully. 'Give its hash and a reason' restates the schema without adding syntax or edge cases, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('a recorded fact should no longer count') and scopes it with 'there is no replacement value', which cleanly separates it from correct_fact. An agent can pick this tool over its siblings without opening any schema.

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 opening clause gives a clear condition for use (fact should no longer count, no replacement). The contrast with correct_fact is strong but implied rather than naming the sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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