knowledge_retract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful side effects: adds 'kb:retracted' tags, hides from default search, still fetchable, and notes required permissions. It could further mention reversibility or return behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, followed by behavioral details and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity and absence of output schema/annotations, the description covers the main behavioral contract, prerequisites, and what callers can expect from related kb_at. It lacks parameter details and return behavior, but overall is well contextualized.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. While 'atom_id' is implied by 'atom', the required 'app_id' and 'reason' parameters are not explained at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Tombstone') and identifies the resource ('KB atom') and the key behavioral effect ('hidden from default search, fetchable by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like knowledge_flag or kb_promote by explaining the retraction semantics.

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 implies when to use this tool (to hide from default search while keeping fetchable by id) and states prerequisites ('Requires knowledge_curate and mapped tags'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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