cpu_create_lot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it discloses the atomic-transaction nature, the DELIVERING-to-OPEN state transition gated on escrow arrival, the freezing/revert behavior when the hub's live fee exceeds maxSaleFeePercent, transit-fee auto-approval, and the pre-transaction refusal safeguard. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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 long but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity: atomic tx, layered fees, freezing logic, delivery state, and prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the core action and the session requirement before diving into mechanics. It is one dense paragraph and would benefit from light structural breaks, but there is no fluff or repetition.

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 high-complexity tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: prerequisites, the refusal safeguard, the post-call delivery step, return values (lotId, locked-in maxSaleFeePercent), fee and freezing edge cases, and tracking tools are all covered. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and to handle the states that follow.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the chain parameter's cost model (foreign-hub transit fee, auto-approval once, free over own cells), the sale-fee carve-out meaning the buyer still pays exactly price × value, and how maxSaleFeePercent drives lot freezing. The maxSaleFeePercent prose partly duplicates the schema's own detailed description, which keeps this from a 5.

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 opening sentence states a specific action — 'List units of a resource for sale at a Hub, on-chain' — and the rest confirms it opens a lot in one atomic transaction. The creation role is unmistakable against sibling tools like cpu_buy_lot, cpu_return_lot, and cpu_evict_lot, even without naming them, because the description centers on opening a listing and shipping goods to the hub.

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?

Explicitly sequences the calling flow: authenticate first, read cpu_get_lot_terms before calling (the tool re-reads the same terms and refuses before any approval or transaction), then call cpu_finalize_delivery on the returned deliveryId, and track with cpu_list_my_lots / cpu_get_lot. The when-to-use context is concrete and the adjacent/alternative tools are named in context.

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