Close SAP Escrow V2

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it's for empty escrows only and requires local signing. While it doesn't detail failure modes or side effects, the context about write operations requiring signer mode and policy approval adds transparency. Could be slightly improved but is good overall.

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 concise: three sentences that cover purpose, alternative for hosted users, and general context. It is front-loaded with the core function and wastes no words.

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?

With an output schema (present but not shown) and annotations covering destructive nature, the description provides sufficient context for using this tool among many escrow siblings. It mentions empty escrow requirement, local signing, and setup prerequisites. Could mention reversibility or error states, but overall complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Given high coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states the action ('direct close'), the resource ('empty V2 escrow'), and the constraint ('local-signer-only'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool sap_escrow_build_close_transaction, which is for hosted users, making the purpose 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?

Explicitly states when to use (local signer, empty escrow) and when not to use (hosted users directed to another tool). Also provides prerequisites: estimate/fetch state, enabled signer mode, and MCP policy approval. This is comprehensive guidance.

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