Cancel a stalled zap-v2 escrow (recover holdings)

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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: 'REAL-MONEY (gated)', returns are 'as-is (no swaps, no oracle)', the escrow is closed, and authority depends on owner vs. post-expiry. This supplements destructiveHint, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint with concrete operational details about what is destroyed and who may invoke it.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the gated real-money warning and the core action. Every sentence earns its place by covering purpose, safety context, authority, and return values without repetition or filler.

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 a destructive, real-money, gated operation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, who can call it, what happens to the escrow, and what is returned (held balances + cancel signature). The only gap is parameter explanation, which is isolated to parameter semantics and does not undermine overall completeness.

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 description does not mention either parameter name or add meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 50% (vault has no description), and the required vault parameter is left undocumented by both description and schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific action (return balances, close escrow) on a specific resource (stalled zap-v2 escrow), with clear outcome. Distinguishes from siblings by framing the use case as the recovery path when a deposit/redeem is stuck, so an agent can tell it apart from deposit, redeem, or zap_v2_update_envelope.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'when a deposit/redeem is stuck and you just want your funds back.' Also gives permission timing: 'Owner anytime; anyone after expiry.' No alternative tools are named and no when-not conditions are stated, which keeps it from a 5.

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