withdraw_contributor_network_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains that withdrawn items disappear from listings, lookups, graphs, and benchmarks, but does not state reversibility, side effects, or required permissions beyond the scope note.

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 very short with three sentences, each serving a purpose: defining the action, specifying scope, and detailing effects. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main effect and scope. It could include error states or prerequisites for clarity, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 single parameter 'item_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not provide any additional context about its meaning, format, or usage.

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 action ('withdraw/unpublish') and the resource ('item'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'publish_contributor_network_item' by specifying the reverse operation.

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 mentions that the item must be authored by the calling account, implying a prerequisite, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use withdraw versus alternatives like delete or unpublish, nor does it mention potential negative cases.

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