withdraw_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the record is marked withdrawn rather than deleted, implying retention and an audit reason. It does not explain permissions, reversibility, idempotency, or what happens to the record's visibility, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, and key contrast with deletion.

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 output schema covers return values, but the description is too thin for a mutation tool with three required, undocumented parameters and no annotations. It should explain path/id semantics and behavioral details like permissions or reversibility to be complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 compensate. It only clarifies the 'reason' parameter by saying the record is withdrawn 'with a reason'; it adds no meaning for 'path' or 'id', leaving two of three required parameters undocumented.

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The description states a specific verb and resource: mark a record withdrawn. It also distinguishes the operation conceptually from deletion by saying 'instead of deleting it.' It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like add_record or get_record, but the core purpose is clear.

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 phrase 'instead of deleting it' gives a clear use context: prefer withdrawal over deletion when a reason should be preserved. However, it does not state when not to use this tool, nor does it name or compare against sibling tools such as add_record or get_record.

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