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

Beyond the minimal annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: it 'builds the transaction, signs it, and submits it,' and explains the cooldown period ('~1 epoch') and withdrawal timing. This adds meaningful lifecycle context without contradicting the annotations.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the cooldown lifecycle, the next-step workflow, and the tool recommendation. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides an end-to-end understanding: one-shot deactivation, cooldown timing, polling via check_withdraw_ready, and subsequent withdrawal. It also names the alternative tool for custom signing, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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 fully describes all three parameters (wallet address, secret key, stake account address) with specific details, such as the secret key being base58-encoded and used for signing only. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 clearly states the action: 'Deactivate a stake account in a single call,' naming the resource (stake account) and the specific behavior. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_unstake_transaction by describing itself as the recommended one-shot alternative.

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 provides when to use this tool: 'This is the recommended tool — use create_unstake_transaction only if you manage your own signing.' It also gives a clear follow-up workflow: 'Use check_withdraw_ready to poll readiness, then withdraw to reclaim SOL.'

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