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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the main consequences: the task is withdrawn, the escrowed reward refunds, and the operation must be signed as the requester. It does not mention irreversibility or the task's post-cancellation state, but the core side effects are covered.

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 extremely concise, with no filler. The action, preconditions, financial effect, and auth requirement are all packed into one short, front-loaded sentence.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: who can call it, on what, and what happens financially. It lacks explicit return/error details, but those are less critical for basic invocation of this mutation.

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. 'taskId' is self-explanatory and 'requester' is clarified as the signer, adding meaning beyond the raw string type. However, it does not specify expected formats or the exact relationship between requester and task ownership beyond the signing requirement.

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 ('Withdraw') with a clear object ('your own unclaimed task') and adds ownership and status constraints. This distinguishes it from related siblings like cancel_withdrawal and withdraw, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It clearly states the context: the requester withdrawing their own unclaimed task, with an escrow refund. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the conditions are clear enough for an agent to decide.

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