Close Print Deposit

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint, etc.) by explicitly warning that it 'moves funds' and explaining the behavioral difference between confirm=false (preview) and confirm=true (execute after user approval). This adds critical context about side effects and safety that annotations alone do not fully convey.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes the most critical safety warning ('IMPORTANT: moves funds') in the second sentence. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for safe invocation: it explains the purpose, the confirm workflow, and the fund-moving nature. The only gap is the undefined 'game' parameter, which prevents a perfect score. Overall, it is nearly complete for a destructive operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It clearly explains the 'confirm' parameter's behavior ('confirm=false previews, confirm=true executes after user approval'). However, the 'game' parameter is not explained beyond its name and default value, leaving ambiguity about what values it accepts or how it relates to the deposit being closed.

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 action ('End a Pacifica Print deposit early and withdraw') with specific verb 'end' and resource 'Pacifica Print deposit', and distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming the exact mechanism ('signed end_game + withdraw_from_game'). The title 'Close Print Deposit' matches the description and is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to end a deposit early and withdraw) and includes explicit instructions for the confirm parameter ('confirm=false previews, confirm=true executes after user approval'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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