retract

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries full weight and does so thoroughly. It discloses the non-destructive nature ('nothing is deleted, and history still walks it'), replica queueing behavior, the required non-blank reason, the exact reply format, and the tombstone rule. Nothing about the operation's side effects is hidden.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct information: purpose, scope, alternative, constraint, replica behavior, future recovery, and reply format. Despite density, it is well-organized and front-loaded with the core semantics before the edge cases. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has subtle semantics (tombstone, live-everywhere removal, replica queueing), and the description addresses all of them. It also covers the required reason, refusal behavior, response format, and post-retraction workflow. With no output schema, this level of detail is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 the description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters. It reinforces the reason requirement and the refusal of blank reasons, but those are already stated in the schema's property description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters fully.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'removes an item that is simply WRONG or no longer applies', and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling 'revise'. It also clarifies the nuanced effect (stops being live everywhere, but nothing is deleted), so an agent can tell exactly what retract does versus other mutations.

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 names the alternative: 'Use revise instead when the item merely changed', giving a clear decision rule. It also explains what to do after retraction ('Bringing the fact back later is a fresh remember, never a revise of the tombstone'), and covers replica behavior without treating it as an error. This is complete routing guidance.

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