tool_slash_stake

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: the slash is permanently recorded in the agent's history and reduces the agent's trust score and tier. This clearly communicates the destructive, irreversible nature of the action, which is critical for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose and effects, then a three-line bullet list for arguments. No redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers the key behavioral effects and parameter meanings. However, it omits details like return value (confirmation message?), error cases, and potential limits on slash_amount. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for an agent to use without additional context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for all three parameters (agent_id, slash_amount, reason) beyond their schema titles. However, it does not specify constraints (e.g., slash_amount must be positive, reason max length) or format, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 tool's purpose: slashing an agent's stake for bad behavior (fraud, non-delivery, rule violations). It specifies the action (slash) and the resource (agent's stake), and it distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., stake_deposit, stake_verify) by focusing on punitive action.

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 lists concrete examples of when to use the tool (fraud, non-delivery, rule violations) and mentions permanent recording and impact on trust score/tier. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives, it implies usage for punitive actions, which provides sufficient context for selection.

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