Withdraw recipe contributions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable specificity beyond that: the withdrawal is future-facing only, and saved cards and meal history survive. That tells the agent exactly what is and is not destroyed, though it says nothing about reversibility or whether a confirmation step is required.

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 semicolon-joined sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately qualifying what persists. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description's main job is to convey effect and safety, which it does well against the annotations. The only gap is the absence of any note on confirmation flow or reversibility, which matters for a non-read-only tool in a family full of prepare_* siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly focuses on scope and effect rather than inventing parameter detail.

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 and resource ('withdraw this account's contributions') plus the scope of the shutdown ('stop future sharing'), which separates it from prepare_contribute_recipe. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like prepare_set_recipe_sharing, which also touches recipe sharing, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 'stop future sharing and withdraw' implies the situation in which you would call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite or confirm_action mention, and no routing statement versus prepare_set_recipe_sharing or prepare_contribute_recipe. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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