kraken_cancel_withdrawal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and the prerequisite that the withdrawal is pending, but it does not mention that cancellation is likely irreversible, whether it affects funds, or what happens if the withdrawal is no longer pending. This is a significant gap for a destructive mutation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every word adds value, efficiently conveying the action, target, and required input.

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?

Although an output schema exists and parameters are well-documented, the description omits important behavioral context for a mutation tool: reversibility, error handling, and constraints around pending status. The tool is destructive with no annotation support, so the description should provide more operational guidance to be 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (`refid` and `asset`) are documented. The description adds slight context by specifying 'reference ID' which matches `refid`, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. No extra parameter semantics are provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('cancel'), the resource ('pending withdrawal'), and the required input ('reference ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like withdrawal status or order cancellation by explicitly targeting withdrawal cancellation.

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 implies usage (when you have a pending withdrawal to cancel) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., already-processed withdrawals). There is no direct sibling competitor, so the purpose alone gives some context, but exclusions and prerequisites are missing.

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