withdraw_expire_unfreeze

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds the timing constraint and effect ('return TRX to available balance') but does not explain failure modes or what happens if called too early. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action clearly, and the second provides timing and effect. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, timing, and effect effectively. It could mention return format or error handling, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 only parameter (network) is fully documented in the schema with name and default. The description adds no extra semantic information about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies per the schema coverage rule.

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 ('withdraw'), the target ('expired unfrozen balance'), and the context ('Stake 2.0', 'after the unfreezing period'). It differentiates from siblings like unfreeze_balance_v2 and withdraw_balance by specifying the exact condition and purpose.

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 instructs to call 'after the unfreezing period', providing a clear usage condition. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the timing context sufficiently distinguishes this from related unstaking tools.

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