Withdraw a recipe contribution

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description usefully adds the scope of that non-destructiveness: nobody's saved cards or meal history are removed. It still omits the prepare/confirm_action two-phase pattern implied by the 'prepare_' prefix, which is a real behavioral gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the outcome front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves no room for the usage and parameter context the agent needs.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers the effect and its blast radius adequately. It is missing the confirm_action follow-up and any hint about how meal_request_id is sourced, which leaves it minimally viable rather than complete.

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%: meal_request_id has only a UUID pattern and no description, and the tool description says nothing about what the identifier refers to or how to obtain it. With a single required parameter undocumented in both places, the description fails to compensate.

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 (withdraw) and scoped resource (this account's contribution), so the agent knows exactly what action is taken. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling prepare_withdraw_recipe_contributions, so the singular/plural distinction is left for the agent to infer.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative sibling (prepare_withdraw_recipe_contributions) or the contribution flow. The only usage-relevant information is the negative scope note about what is not deleted.

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