team_goal_retract

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that this is a reversible signal, not a deletion, that the goal remains in the log and is listable via include_retracted, and that re-declaring the same id revives it. Those are exactly the state-effect and reversibility facts an agent needs before mutating shared board state.

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 dense sentence front-loads the action, then the non-destructive caveat, then the use cases. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the name.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers reversibility, listing behavior, and revival, which is the core risk surface. It leaves permission/ownership requirements and what the call returns unstated, a minor but real gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single goal_id parameter is already documented as "the goal to retract," so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds indirect meaning about goal_id identity — the same id can be revived by re-declaring — but no format, sourcing, or error semantics beyond that.

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 ("Retract (withdraw) a Goal from the board") and immediately clarifies that the goal is not deleted, which separates it from any destructive-delete interpretation. It only partially differentiates from siblings like team_goal_declare and team_goal_outcome, touching declare via the revival note but never naming alternatives.

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?

Explicitly gives the use cases: goals that are obsolete, merged into another, or scratch. That is clear, actionable context, but there is no when-not guidance or explicit routing to team_goal_declare/team_goal_outcome for other lifecycle transitions.

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