withdraw_from_burza

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the restore-as-meal-order side effect, but says nothing about what happens if the offer was already sold, whether the withdrawal is reversible, what authorization is needed, or what the 'confirmed' flag does (dry-run vs commit).

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the key outcome is front-loaded after the action. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves the two parameters unaddressed.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin: it omits the role of 'confirmed', the failure mode for already-sold offers, and any permission or irreversibility notes.

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 0% and neither of the two parameters is mentioned in the description. 'exchange_id' is only obliquely implied by 'your offer', and the boolean 'confirmed' parameter (default false) — likely a commit/dry-run switch — is completely undocumented anywhere.

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 names a specific verb ('withdraw') and resource ('your still-unsold offer from burza'), plus the resulting state change ('restore it as your meal order'). It is clearly the inverse of sell_on_burza, though that sibling is not named explicitly.

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 phrase 'still-unsold' implies the precondition that the offer has not yet been matched, which hints at when this tool is valid. However, no alternative is named (e.g. cancel_meal vs withdraw_from_burza) and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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