withdraw_proposal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the login requirement, the ownership restriction, and the not_found error behavior for invalid proposals. It does not describe the success return value but covers the most critical behavioral traits.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. The second sentence adds edge cases and auth requirement without any 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: action, target scope, failure conditions, and login requirement. It could mention the success response, but the description is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with the proposalId parameter described as 'Proposal id from list_proposals'. The description reinforces the precondition of being 'your own pending' but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Withdraws') and the resource ('your own pending proposal'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings like propose_dictionary_word and list_proposals by specifying the scope and behavior for invalid targets.

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 gives clear usage context: only 'your own pending proposal' should be withdrawn, and 'Proposals by others or already processed return not_found'. This effectively tells the agent when not to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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