palinode_unretract

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it un-strikes every span the pref produced, removes the pref from `retracted_prefs`, preserves file `status`, and enables future forget strikes. These are concrete, non-obvious mechanics beyond what annotations state, and they are consistent with the annotation hints.

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 dense sentences carry all essential information: the action, the mechanical effect, the side effect on `retracted_prefs`, the input requirement, and the status invariant. There is no fluff; technical notation is used efficiently, and the most important consequence is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation's scope, exact mutations, preconditions (pref as recorded in history), and invariants (`status` never changes). It also explains the follow-up relationship to forget requests. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance by instructing the agent to 'Pass the pref phrase as recorded in the file's history sibling,' which clarifies the required precision of the `pref` parameter and ties it to a specific source. This is a useful supplement to the schema's wording.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Withdraw one preference's mention-level retraction from one memory.' It precisely distinguishes this from siblings by specifying mention-level retraction, the un-striking of `~~…~~ [RETRACTED …]` spans, and removal from `retracted_prefs`. This makes the tool's role in the palinode family clear without needing to inspect schemas.

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 clear usage context: use this to undo a mention-level retraction for a specific pref, and the consequence—'a later forget request for the same pref can strike again'—clarifies when this is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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