withdraw_bid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that withdrawal is only possible before acceptance, but fails to specify what happens on success (e.g., is the bid permanently removed?), what occurs if the bid is already accepted (e.g., error), or any other consequences. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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, short sentence that is immediately understandable. It is not padded with filler and gets straight to the point, earning its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite the simple tool shape (2 required string params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too thin. It lacks parameter explanations, return/error behavior, and any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation support, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently use it.

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 0% and the description does not mention either parameter (jobId, bidId). The agent must guess what jobId is for, why both are required, and how they relate. The description adds no value in explaining the parameters, making it very difficult to invoke correctly.

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 the action (withdraw) and the resource (your bid), and includes a key condition ('before it's accepted'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_bid (creating a bid) and accept_bid (accepting a bid) by focusing on the withdrawal operation.

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 phrase 'before it's accepted' provides a clear timing constraint, implying this tool is for canceling a bid that is still pending. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., cancel_job) but the context is reasonably clear for an agent selecting between bid-related tools.

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