annul_sp_request

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

Discloses critical execution pattern: returns an 'unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing'. This compensates for lack of annotations by clarifying the tool builds but does not submit transactions. Missing details on side effects (what happens to the request state after annulment).

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with action ('Cancel'), followed by return value specification. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations: describes return format (compensating for missing output schema). However, lacks authorization context (who can annul?) and state transition details given this is a financial mutation operation.

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 100% (all 3 parameters have descriptions), establishing baseline 3. Description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what schema provides, but none needed given complete schema coverage.

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?

Specific verb 'Cancel' + specific resource 'pending stability pool request' clearly identifies the operation. Distinguishes from siblings like 'process_sp_request' and 'cancel_rob' by explicitly scoping to stability pool requests.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'process_sp_request'. Does not state prerequisites (e.g., request must be pending) or authorization requirements (e.g., must be request owner).

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