t2000_job_settle

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the effects of each action (e.g., 'release: accept the delivery → funds to the seller'), mentions sponsorship ('Sponsored (no gas)'), and notes that actions can be executed by different roles. Lacks info on error states or idempotency, but is forthcoming about core behavior.

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?

Description is four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then action details, then usage hint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash, success status). For a tool that performs a blockchain settlement, this is a notable gap. The description otherwise covers inputs and behavior well.

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 coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions for 'jobId' and 'action'. The description adds crucial context to the 'action' enum by explaining the business logic of each value (e.g., 'release' sends funds to seller). This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Which settlement to run'.

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?

Description clearly states 'Settle an escrow job — MOVES THE ESCROWED FUNDS' and enumerates three specific actions (release, reject, refund) with distinct outcomes. It differentiates from sibling tools like t2000_job_create and t2000_job_review by focusing on settlement.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Check t2000_jobs first — it tells you which of these THIS wallet can run right now.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and what precondition to verify. Could be stronger by explicitly naming alternatives, but the instruction is clear.

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