seal_abort

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

Annotations convey read/write and idempotency, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: it returns {released: true}, only the fence holder may abort, the reason is recorded on the chain, and aborting in uncertain cases risks a second charge. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Purpose, return value, authorization, and exclusion are front-loaded in compact sentences. The warning about second charges is meaningful, not filler, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

With rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers authorization, return value, the condition for a legitimate abort, and the failure mode to avoid. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only minor context (e.g., reason is recorded on chain) but does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: release a claim after a failure where nothing irreversible happened. It provides precise scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name (it refers to a witness 'settle' rather than a listed sibling), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('after a failure where NOTHING irreversible happened') and an explicit when-not-to-use with alternative ('If the effect may have fired... do NOT abort — leave the claim and let a witness (settle) decide'). This is exactly the guidance an agent needs to avoid a double charge.

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