ecash_withdraw_arbitrator

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral effects. It states 'You won't be selected for new disputes,' but fails to mention whether existing disputes are affected or if the action is reversible. This is a notable omission for a state-changing tool.

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 description is two short sentences, front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core action and a key consequence.

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 simple no-parameter tool, the description covers the primary purpose. However, it omits potential implications for existing disputes, which would be useful for the agent's decision-making. Somewhat incomplete given its simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter semantics. Per the rubric, the baseline score for no params is 4.

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 disables arbitrator status with 'Stop being an arbitrator.' It differentiates from the sibling tool ecash_enroll_arbitrator by indicating the opposite action.

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 implicitly conveys when to use it (when the agent no longer wants to arbitrate) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The presence of the sibling enroll tool provides context.

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