Withdraw a freee personal application

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so a write with no retry is expected. The description adds valuable behavioral guidance beyond the annotations: the agent may validate the fingerprint and proceed without a second prompt, and it must never retry an unknown write, which is critical safety context for a destructive mutation.

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?

Two sentences carry the entire behavioral contract: when to act, what the agent may do, and what it must never do. The safety-critical retry warning is front-loaded in a short final clause, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 destructive, non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition, authorization requirement, fingerprint validation, and retry prohibition. It is slightly light on explicit linkage to the prepare_withdraw sibling and on what a successful withdrawal returns, but the schema and wording together give enough context to call it correctly.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description, so the description does not need to re-explain them. It lightly reinforces the fingerprint's validation role and the confirm parameter's user-authorization meaning, but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Withdraw') and resource ('one real personal application'), and 'after its matching preview' clearly positions it as the commit counterpart to a prepare step. This differentiates it from the many personal-application sibling tools, especially prepare_withdraw and the commit_create/commit_cancel variants.

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?

It explicitly frames when the tool is appropriate: after the matching preview and only when the exact action or an active scoped business policy is user-authorized. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use commit_cancel instead for cancellation,' but the preview-commit pairing conveys the intended usage context.

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