atstake_cancel_bid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden: it correctly identifies this as a state-changing withdrawal that returns unfilled escrow (implying partially filled amounts stay filled) and that a wallet must be unlocked. It omits failure modes, whether cancellation is rejected for fully filled bids, and whether an on-chain transaction/fee is involved.

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?

The operational sentence and the auth prerequisite are front-loaded and free of redundancy. The trailing "Tip" about earning_opportunities is low-value filler but short enough not to obscure the core instruction.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations or output schema, the definition covers the action, the escrowed-funds effect, and the wallet prerequisite. Remaining gaps (fee/gas behavior, failure conditions for filled bids) are meaningful but not blocking for correct invocation.

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 single `side` enum is documented in-schema with the full yes/bonded vs no/idle semantics, so the description need not repeat it. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case for high coverage.

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 ("Withdraw a resting bid") plus the concrete outcome ("get the unfilled escrow back"). It implicitly separates itself from atstake_place_bid/atstake_get_bid, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 prerequisite "Requires an unlocked wallet" is stated, and "resting bid" implies an open, unfilled bid is the target. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives like atstake_get_bid to confirm a bid exists; the earning_opportunities tip is promotional rather than routing.

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