Withdraw one token to the withdrawal wallet

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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true); the description adds real behavioral context: it is a REAL-MONEY gated action, the destination is resolved server-side so the caller controls WHAT but never WHERE, and an unheld mint errors rather than no-oping. That is substantial value beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is front-loaded with the most important constraint ('REAL-MONEY (gated)') and every sentence carries information, but several clauses are stacked with parentheticals and em-dashes, making it denser than it needs to be for quick scanning.

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?

For a 3-parameter, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what moves, the server-side destination resolution, amount semantics, the pre-read step, and the error behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `mint` should come from list_app_wallet_assets, and `amount` is explicitly in RAW base units with a concrete rationale ('a 9-decimal token does not survive a UI float') and the omit-to-send-all default. Both undocumented-in-schema parameters gain precise meaning.

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 ('Send ONE mint from the app wallet to the owner's saved withdrawal wallet') and explicitly distinguishes itself from app_wallet_withdraw by noting that tool 'sweeps only USDC + SOL.' An agent can tell exactly what moves and where it goes without opening any schema.

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?

It states when this tool is the right choice (fund shares, which app_wallet_withdraw cannot move), the prerequisite step ('Read the mint and balance from list_app_wallet_assets first'), and the failure mode for a mint not held ('an error, not a no-op'). Alternatives and preconditions are both named.

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