Build SAP Escrow V2 Withdraw Transaction

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

Adds value beyond annotations by explaining that the tool is a 'hosted-safe unsigned builder' and the output is not submitted or signed. Annotations already indicate destructive hint, but the description clarifies that actual submission happens later. No contradiction.

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 at 5-6 sentences, covering purpose, usage, and a warning. It is front-loaded but slightly repetitive with 'Hosted-safe unsigned' appearing twice.

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 the presence of output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential behavioral flow and safety warnings. It could mention error handling or edge cases but is sufficient for a builder tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., units, derivation of PDA).

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 tool builds an unsigned withdraw transaction for Escrow V2. It distinguishes from sibling build tools by specifying 'withdraw_escrow_v2' and explains the workflow (preview then finalize).

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?

Provides clear context that this is a builder and should be followed by finalization using sap_payments_finalize_transaction. Also warns about not creating signing scripts. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other escrow build tools like deposit or settle.

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