cancel_rob

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses the critical behavioral trait that it returns an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) requiring client-side signing rather than executing directly. It does not mention reversibility or fee implications.

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 with zero waste: first states the action, second discloses the return format and signing requirement. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the return value (unsigned CBOR hex) and operation type. With 100% schema coverage, it provides sufficient context for a blockchain mutation tool, though explicit prerequisites would strengthen it further.

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 100% (all three parameters documented), establishing baseline 3. The description implies the need to identify a specific position but does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb 'Cancel' with clear resource 'ROB position', clearly distinguishing it from sibling operations like adjust_rob, claim_rob, open_rob, and redeem_rob. The scope is 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?

While the verb 'Cancel' implies usage for terminating positions, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over adjust_rob (modification) or redeem_rob (redemption), or prerequisites like ownership requirements.

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