Cancel an open P2P offer

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

Adds behavioral details beyond annotations: 'reclaiming your escrow' (side effect), 'any boost spend is not refunded' (cost), and 'Mainnet gated' (restriction). Annotations already state idempotent and non-destructive; description is consistent and adds value.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and key constraints (reclaim, non-refundable boost, mainnet). No unnecessary 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?

Covers essential context for a simple tool: what it does, side effects, restrictions. Could briefly mention error cases (e.g., offer not found), but adequate for 2-param tool with no output schema.

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 has 2 parameters (id, chain) with 0% description coverage. Description does not elaborate on their meaning. While names are somewhat self-explanatory, description fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Cancel', resource 'offer you created that has not been taken', and key constraints ('reclaiming your escrow', 'Mainnet gated'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like p2p_take_offer or p2p_repay.

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 specific context: cancel only unsold offers, escrow reclaim but boost non-refundable, mainnet-only. Implicitly excludes taken offers but doesn't name alternative tools explicitly.

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