Release an escrow hold to its recipient, moving funds. Use the escrow ID from create_escrow; the same call cannot undo this action.
Release an escrow hold to its recipient. This moves money and cannot be undone by the same call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| escrowId | Yes | The escrow id from create_escrow, not the escrow code. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: money moves and the call is irreversible ('cannot be undone by the same call'), hinting a separate reversal path may exist. It says nothing about permissions, required escrow status, or failure behavior for a money-moving mutation.
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 short sentences, zero waste, with the action and its irreversibility front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Low complexity (one required param) keeps the bar modest, but for an irreversible money movement with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits preconditions, authorization, and what the caller receives on success.
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% and the escrowId description already disambiguates id vs code, so the schema does the work. The tool description adds no parameter guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented single parameter.
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 (release) plus resource (escrow hold) and the direction of the action (to its recipient). No sibling tool overlaps with escrow release, so an agent can select it unambiguously.
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?
Usage is only implied: you call this when an escrow hold is to be paid out. There is no statement of preconditions (escrow state, who may release, timing relative to create_escrow) and no explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.