retract_claim

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

Annotations mark this as non-readonly and non-destructive, and 'kept in history' usefully confirms the claim is retained rather than deleted. However, the description does not say whether the retraction is reversible, where the reason is surfaced, or what downstream effects (theses, alerts) the retraction has.

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?

A single short sentence with the key behavioral fact front-loaded and no wasted clauses. Appropriate size for the tool's scope.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the mutation intent is clear. But for a two-parameter, non-readonly mutation with zero schema documentation, the gaps around parameter meaning and sibling routing leave an agent under-informed.

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%: claim_id and reason are bare titles with no documented meaning. The description adds nothing about the expected format of claim_id or what a reason should contain, so it fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: withdrawing a claim that turned out to be wrong. The parenthetical '(kept in history)' hints at how this differs from supersede_claim, but the distinction from that sibling (and from record_rejected_hypothesis) is never made explicit.

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?

Implies the trigger condition ('turned out to be wrong'), but gives no explicit when-not guidance. With supersede_claim, undo_records and record_rejected_hypothesis in the sibling set, an agent has to guess which correction mechanism applies.

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