Withdraw Offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two meaningful constraints (the offer must belong to you and must still be pending), which prevents misuse on other managers' offers. It says nothing about irreversibility, whether the offer can be re-placed, or what happens to the player's market listing afterwards.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the restricting qualifiers. Nothing redundant.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters needs more context than a single sentence – particularly how to obtain offer_id and whether withdrawal is reversible.

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 0% for all three parameters, and the description does not explain offer_id, player_id, or the optional league_id. The 15% parameter weight is where this definition loses the most value.

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 (withdraw) and resource (offer) plus scope ('your own pending offer on a market player'), which separates it from accept_offer, decline_offer, and remove_player_from_market. It stops short of naming the sibling it would be confused with.

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?

Usage is implied by the qualifiers 'your own' and 'pending' – an agent can infer this applies only to its own outstanding offers. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over decline_offer or how to check offer state first.

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