a4a_dialogue_abandon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden well: it confirms nothing is sent, explains the relay-owner rationale, discloses that it refuses letters that already left, and states that history is preserved and the operation id is not freed. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the no-send guarantee, then follows with the when-to-use condition and the exclusion. It is a bit long across three paragraphs and includes rationale ('the content is encrypted, who talks to whom is not'), but nearly every sentence contributes actionable guidance.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety, preconditions, exclusions, and side effects thoroughly. The only real gap is the missing explanation of the lease_token parameter, which an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 0% and there are two required parameters. The description gives some meaning to operation_id (it is not freed, replacement must use a new id) but says nothing about lease_token, so half the inputs remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 resource ('Give up on a PREPARED letter') and immediately clarifies the effect ('Never sends anything'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling a4a_dialogue_reconcile by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('only when a prepared letter is refused because the configured relay set changed') and when not to ('dispatching, unknown and accepted outcomes need a4a_dialogue_reconcile, not disposal'). Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it.

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