agirails_settle

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

The description adds that the tool updates provider reputation beyond annotations. It clarifies the tool returns a snippet rather than directly settling. Annotations indicate it mutates state, but the description suggests the mutation occurs when the snippet is run.

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: first defines purpose, second gives usage condition and side effect. No redundant information.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, usage condition, and side effect. However, it does not explain the output snippet format or that the tool itself does not execute the settlement directly, which could be important for an agent.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters or provide guidance on them. With only 50% schema coverage (network parameter lacks description), the description should compensate but fails to add value for parameter usage.

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 snippet to release escrowed USDC, completing the DELIVERED→SETTLED transition. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agirails_deliver and agirails_dispute.

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 says to generate the code when satisfied with the delivery, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like agirails_dispute for when unsatisfied.

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