q402_escrow_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the tool 'MOVES REAL FUNDS irreversibly' and requires user confirmation, both crucial for a high-stakes operation. It does not cover failure modes or auth details, but the primary risk is clearly disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, each purposeful: the action/actor, the irreversibility warning, and the confirmation requirement. No filler or repetition, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema. The description covers what it does, who does it, the irreversible nature, and the necessary confirmation step. The sibling tool list provides enough surrounding context for an agent to select it correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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 clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by tying 'confirm' to a real-world precondition ('Confirm with the user first') and by qualifying 'escrowId' as a 'locked escrow'. This reinforces behavioral meaning beyond the schema's boolean const.

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: 'BUYER releases a locked escrow to the SELLER'. It names a specific verb, resource, and actor, and differentiates from sibling tools like escrow_refund and escrow_dispute by specifying the buyer-signed, gasless release direction.

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 conveys the exact context: this is the buyer's action to release funds to the seller. It also provides a critical usage instruction: 'Confirm with the user first (confirm:true)'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the actor/action pairing gives clear contextual guidance.

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