unmanned_retract_fact

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 behavioral traits: the reason is permanent, retracting your own fact is free, retracting a stranger's consumes daily quota, and is_own_fact keeps local accounting honest. It does not state exactly what happens to the fact itself or mention auth requirements, but the disclosed effects are substantial.

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?

Three sentences, all informative, with the core action front-loaded and the usage caveats following. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, alternatives, cost, permanence, and parameter meaning. It omits the exact fate of the retracted fact and the return shape, but those are minor gaps given how much context is provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It maps fact_id to the target fact, reason to a permanent record, and is_own_fact to ownership and quota accounting. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific action, 'Retract a fact', and adds a distinguishing detail: the reason stays on the record forever. It also contrasts with asserting a better-sourced fact, which sets it apart from the sibling assert_fact tool.

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 explicit when-not guidance: prefer asserting a better-sourced fact over retracting when you merely disagree. It also explains when retraction costs quota (retracting a stranger's fact) and instructs the agent to set is_own_fact=true for own facts.

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