retract_executable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly details the deletion operation: 'DETACH DELETE the Specimen + its ClaimCards (and their REALIZES / HAS_CLAIM / GROUNDS edges)'. It also clarifies safety by stating 'The existing graph nodes the links pointed at are untouched.' This is strong transparency, though it omits details on idempotency or behavior when spec_id is invalid.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose statement, followed by technical specifics, guidance, and a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value, from the scope of deletion to the untouched nodes and return counts, without excessive verbosity.

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 single-parameter deletion tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what is deleted, what remains untouched, when to use it, what the parameter means, and what the return JSON contains. No annotation support is needed, and the inclusion of return counts makes this comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides a meaningful explanation: 'spec_id: the content-hash id of the specimen to retract (from query_executable).' This adds clarity about the parameter's type, purpose, and origin, which the schema alone (just a string) does not convey.

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 starts with 'Reverse a project_executable apply', which clearly states the tool's purpose as undoing a specific sibling operation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'retract_node' by targeting a 'project_executable' projection and specifying the exact entities affected (Specimen + ClaimCards). The phrase 'Use this to undo a bad projection' further reinforces the tool's specific role.

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 explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use this to undo a bad projection.' This establishes clear context tied to a prior project_executable call. However, it does not mention when not to use it or directly compare it to alternatives like 'retract_node', so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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