cancel_virtuals_tender

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond that: the target is a non-spendable draft, and the cancellation does not erase or refund an already-created on-chain job. It also discloses the authentication tier and prerequisite gating. What is missing is the outcome of a successful cancel and the effect on any bound funding reservation.

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 two prose sentences are tight and front-loaded, but the bracketed metadata prefix (capability/tier/API/authority paths) is routing noise that consumes the most salient position without telling the agent how to call the tool. The useful content is compact once past that prefix.

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 destructive, authenticated mutation with no output schema and four undocumented required parameters, the description covers the behavioral boundary well but leaves gaps: parameter meaning, what a successful cancel returns, and what happens to a bound job or reserved funding. It is adequate, not 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 description coverage is 0% and there are four required parameters (sessionId, agentAddress, sessionToken, tenderId). The description says nothing about any of them; only the word 'authenticated' hints that sessionToken/sessionId are credentials. The 'fdat_' pattern for tenderId and the distinction between agentAddress and session identity are left entirely to the agent to infer.

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 object: 'Cancel an authenticated non-spendable ACP draft.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_virtuals_tender, bind_virtuals_tender_job, and hire_virtuals_specialist. The term 'draft' rather than 'tender' is a minor mismatch with the tool name, but the intent is still clear.

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 gives one boundary condition ('cannot erase or refund an already-created on-chain job'), which implies when not to use it, but it never says when to use this instead of get_virtuals_tender or bind_virtuals_tender_job. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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