retire_swap_offer

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full load and does: it discloses the poster-only auth requirement, the key side effect (coins stay reserved until revert_swap_offer or the 15-minute release), and the non-error behavior for already-closed offers where a lapsed offer returns expired rather than throwing. It even declares the return shape { offerId, status }.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, then layered with auth, reservation, and return semantics. It is dense but every sentence carries a real behavioral fact; the "(NIGHTGATE 0.40.0)" version tag and the jargon-heavy "half" phrasing are the only slightly noisy elements.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers auth, state consequences, idempotent-style error handling for closed offers, follow-up tools, and the return object. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 single offerId parameter has 100% schema coverage including uuid format and a strict pattern, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description only implies offerId is the board entry via "Take an offer off the board" and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: taking a swap offer off the board, with the scoping note that only its poster may do so. It names the related siblings (revert_swap_offer, get_swap_wallet) and makes clear this tool removes the offer rather than releasing its escrowed funds, so an agent can distinguish it from revert_swap_offer without opening either schema.

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?

"Only its poster may" sets an explicit authorization precondition, and naming revert_swap_offer plus the 15-minute get_swap_wallet release tells the agent the follow-up paths for reclaiming coins. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, but the context for choosing retire over revert is clear.

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