xrp_cancel_escrow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Cancel an expired escrow' without detailing side effects (e.g., funds returned to owner), irreversibility, or any prerequisites beyond what the schema already lists. This is a mutation tool, and the lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundant content. It front-loads the action and condition efficiently, earning its place in the limited space.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too terse. It omits important contextual details such as when to use it, prerequisites, consequences of cancellation, and potential errors. The near-identical purpose is already implied by the tool name, so the description adds little beyond that.

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%, with each parameter (privateKey, owner, escrow_sequence) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic value or relationships between parameters, 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 'Cancel an expired escrow' uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('escrow'), and specifies the condition 'expired' to clarify the scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrp_finish_escrow (which finishes an escrow) and xrp_create_escrow (which creates one).

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 implies usage when an escrow is expired, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xrp_finish_escrow. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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