Refund contest

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add the concrete side effect (every participant's bet is refunded), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, whether the contest becomes unrecoverable, or how partial/unclaimed bets are handled.

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?

A single, tightly front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the core effect is stated immediately.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the annotations carry the safety burden and the description states the observable outcome. It is minimally adequate but lacks the sibling differentiation and permission/precondition context that would make it complete.

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%, with both channel and contestId fully documented (including the 24-char hex pattern and the SE_CHANNEL_ID defaulting rule). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific action and resource ('Cancel a contest and refund every participant's bet'), which is far more informative than a tautology. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling operations contests_close and contests_delete, which an agent must choose between for the same resource.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as contests_close, contests_delete, or the analogous giveaways_refund. The refund semantics are implied by the verb but the routing condition between these contest-ending tools is left entirely to inference.

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