cpu_evict_lot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so admirably. It explicitly states what the tool does not do: moves no goods, seizes nothing, never finalizes a delivery, never touches more than the one named lot, and never brings anything home. It also clarifies the ownership and escrow implications for the buyer, seller, and Hub.

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 more expansive than typical tool docs, but every sentence earns its place by clarifying scope, exclusions, side effects, or alternatives. It is front-loaded with the action and requirements, though the long multi-clause explanation of Hub counting could have been tightened or structured with bullets.

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 there are no annotations and no output schema, this description is complete for safe invocation. It fully explains the preconditions, the behavioral limits, the effect on Hub storage and demolition, and the only valid alternative path (cpu_return_lot for one's own lots). An agent has all the context needed to decide when and how to call the tool.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single lotId parameter, including its source endpoints and required conditions (open, foreign, on a Hub you own, one lot per call). The description reinforces these constraints but does not significantly add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 precise action — evict one foreign OPEN lot off a Hub you own — and explains the narrow scope of what the tool does. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling cpu_return_lot by stating that only the seller can return goods and that this tool never brings anything home.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: remove a foreign open lot from your Hub storage, stop it selling, and stop it counting toward Hub demolition. It also gives an explicit exclusion — your own lot cannot be evicted — and routes to cpu_return_lot as the alternative. The Hub demolition explanation provides valuable usage context.

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