retract

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

Side effects are disclosed: the item stops being live everywhere but is not deleted, history remains. Return values are described ('retracted <id> (<reason>)' or refusal text), and special cases like blank reasons and replica queueing are mentioned, ensuring the agent understands observable behavior.

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 description is detailed but every sentence contributes unique information—purpose, distinction from revise, reason requirement, replica behavior, return format, and future implications. No redundancy or filler, and the structure flows logically.

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?

Given the complexity of a soft-delete operation with replica considerations, the description covers all necessary context: what happens to the item, what the response looks like, how it differs from related tools, and edge cases. No gaps remain for an agent to use the tool 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?

Parameter meanings are fully covered by the schema descriptions for both id and reason. The tool description further clarifies that a reason is required and a blank one is refused, supplementing the schema and eliminating ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it removes an item that is wrong or no longer applies, making it non-live everywhere while preserving history. The distinction from revise is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what retract does.

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 description provides direct usage guidance: use revise instead when the item merely changed, and use remember (fresh) rather than revise to bring a fact back later. It also explains behavior on replicas, making when and how to use the tool clear.

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