agirails_cancel

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

Annotations indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds that it returns a snippet and cancels transactions, but doesn't disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or what happens to escrowed funds beyond returning them.

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 concise sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then elaborates on specifics.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return type (TypeScript snippet) but lacks detail on the snippet's structure or error handling. Parameter info is covered by schema. Minimal completeness for a low-complexity tool.

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 50% (only txId has a description; network has enum/default but no description). The description adds no parameter info, so it doesn't compensate for the 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a TypeScript snippet to cancel transactions and specifies the allowed statuses (INITIATED, QUOTED, COMMITTED). This verb+resource+scope is distinct from sibling tools like agirails_accept_quote or agirails_deliver.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or prerequisites like having a transaction ID. The description implies use for cancellation but doesn't exclude cases or mention other tools.

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