nayori_withdraw_application

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

The description explicitly labels the operation as WRITE on mainnet, warns that broadcast is not confirmation, and discloses the refusal behavior when no application is active. This meaningfully enriches the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct value: operation/network, precondition, and return semantics. The most important signal ('WRITE (mainnet)') is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return value (txid) and the key caveat that broadcast is not confirmation. The main missing piece is parameter semantics for asset, but the tool is otherwise adequately characterized for safe invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions the job generically but does not clarify what asset selects or what jobId refers to beyond its name. The schema's enum and integer constraints provide limited guidance, but no additional semantics are supplied.

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 uses a specific verb ('Withdraw') and resource ('this wallet's active application for a job'), and cites the underlying job-applications-v1 withdraw-application operation. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like apply_to_job and list_applications.

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 when to use the tool—withdrawing an active application—and states the refusal condition ('Refused if there is no active application'). However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or direct the agent to first check existing applications via list_applications.

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