spraay_escrow_cancel

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing data persistence in Supabase, cost ($0.002 USDC), and authorization conditions. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by authorization rules and cost/persistence. No unnecessary words, efficient structure.

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 simple tool with two parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and known output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization, persistence, and cost. It could mention irreversibility or error conditions but annotations handle some of that.

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% and the description essentially repeats the parameter descriptions from the schema (e.g., caller must be depositor or arbiter for funded escrows). No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 it cancels an escrow, specifies conditions based on funding state (unfunded vs funded), and who can cancel. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, fund, get, list, and release.

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 on when to use (to cancel an escrow) and who can call it under different states. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like releasing funds.

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