cpu_cancel_lot

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses the atomicity of the transaction, potential $CPU transit fee for foreign hub returns, gas costs, and the need to call cpu_finalize_delivery for crediting. It also clarifies that no crediting occurs until arrival, which is a key behavioral trait.

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 compact yet information-dense, front-loading the purpose and then covering requirements, fees, and post-steps without redundancy. Each sentence adds value, and the structure is logical.

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 tool with no output schema, the description manages to cover prerequisites, process, fees, and next steps (finalize_delivery, tracking). It even implies the return of a deliveryId. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the workflow and necessary actions.

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% for both params. The description restates the chain format and lotId ownership, adding little beyond the schema. While it mentions the fee implication, that's more behavioral transparency than parameter meaning. 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 tool's purpose: 'Withdraw an OPEN lot; the unsold units return to you, on-chain.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like creating or buying lots. The on-chain detail adds precision.

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?

It provides clear context: requires a session, requires chain for the return shipment, and mentions tracking with cpu_list_my_lots/cpu_get_lot. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls 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.