bounty_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose real behavioral context: authorization requirement (poster only), state gating, and the exact BIP-322 signing payload. It omits what happens to escrowed funds after cancellation and whether the action is reversible, which matters for a destructive mutation with no destructiveHint.

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-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the signing format — good ordering. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is tangential promotional content that does not help invoke this tool, though it costs only one sentence.

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 single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: permission, allowed states, and the signature it must produce. Missing only post-cancellation effects (funds, response shape), which the absence of an output schema makes more noticeable.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already explains bounty_id. The description's signing-message template ({bountyId}) echoes the parameter without adding format rules beyond what the schema supplies; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Cancel a bounty') with unambiguous scope. The name/description pair needs no inference to know this destroys a bounty rather than creating or accepting one.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: only the poster may call it, and only while status is 'open' or 'judging', clarified parenthetically as 'before any submission has been accepted'. It does not name an alternative action (e.g. bounty_accept) or say what to do if the preconditions fail, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing.

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