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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the calldata is time-sensitive and must be broadcast within 30 seconds, failed transactions should be rebuilt and retried at least once, and the response includes tenderly_sim_url and tenderly_sim_status for pre-broadcast validation. These details materially change how an agent should execute the call. No contradiction with annotations detected.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then moves to the key alternative, then to execution-critical guidance. Every sentence adds operational value, including the 30-second window, retry instruction, and tenderly simulation note. The length is justified by the tool's time-sensitive and failure-prone nature.

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?

The definition is complete for a transaction-builder tool: it covers what the tool does, when to use it vs. the sibling, the partial-exit behavior, time sensitivity, retry handling, and pre-broadcast validation. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be restated, and the description adds the operational context an agent needs to call and act on the result correctly.

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 schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description reinforces the partial-vs-full distinction relevant to the adjustment parameter, but it does not add significant new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'PARTIALLY decreases liquidity from an LP position.' It also clarifies the resulting state ('position remains open with reduced liquidity; underlying tokens stay in the account') and explicitly contrasts itself with the full-exit sibling write_account_close, making the tool's identity unambiguous.

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 an explicit when-to-use signal: use this tool for partial removal, and for full position exit use write_account_close instead, noting that it 'batches everything into one atomic transaction.' This directly routes an agent to the correct sibling without leaving the decision to inference.

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