cancel_lot

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

Without annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: the cost implication ('A return through a foreign Hub costs $CPU — auto-approved and paid on-chain — otherwise it is free') and the session requirement. It adds value beyond the input schema.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey all essential information: action, effect, prerequisites, parameter usage, cost implications, and follow-up tools. No redundancy or filler.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter logic, cost behavior, and tracking methods. It feels complete for an agent to use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description reinforces and adds context: it explains the chain parameter's necessity based on lot state and the lotId parameter's ownership constraint ('must be yours'). This goes beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 begins with a clear verb-object pair 'Withdraw your lot' and immediately states the outcome 'unsold units return to you.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'create_lot', 'buy_lot', and 'list_lots' by its cancellation purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the chain parameter ('For an OPEN lot pass chain = ...') and when to omit it ('omit chain only for a DRAFT lot'). It also mentions the requirement of a session and suggests tracking with list_my_lots/get_lot, providing practical usage context.

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