cancel_all_unfreeze_v2

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (`destructiveHint: true`), and the description adds valuable context about exactly what gets affected: waiting-period funds are re-staked, and expired funds are auto-withdrawn to the owner. This goes beyond the annotation's generic warning.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Cancel unstakings') and then explains the two scenarios. There is no redundancy or filler; every clause adds meaningful detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the primary behavior well. It lacks details about the return value or any prerequisites, but these are not critical for a straightforward cancellation action.

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 only parameter `network` is fully documented in the schema with a description and default value. The tool description does not need to add more, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Cancel unstakings') and explains the two outcomes: re-staking funds still in the waiting period and auto-withdrawing funds past the 14-day period. This distinguishes it from related tools like `unfreeze_balance_v2` and `withdraw_expire_unfreeze`.

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 makes it evident that this tool is for canceling all unfreeze operations by combining re-staking and withdrawal behaviors. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over per-item tools.

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