adjust_staking_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It excellently discloses that the tool returns an 'unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing,' which is critical behavioral context indicating the operation is not automatically finalized. It could improve by noting this is a mutating blockchain transaction requiring fees.

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 consists of two highly efficient sentences. The first covers purpose and operation type; the second covers the critical return format. There is no redundancy or extraneous information—every word serves the agent's decision-making or invocation process.

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 complexity (Cardano blockchain staking) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by specifying the CBOR hex return format. However, it omits mention of transaction fees, UTxO consumption behavior, or the specific prerequisite that the positionTxHash/outputIndex must reference an existing valid UTxO.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, though it reinforces the 'add or remove' concept which aligns with the amount parameter's positive/negative logic. No additional parameter context (e.g., address format details) is provided.

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 specific action ('Adjust'), resource ('existing INDY staking position'), and mechanism ('add or remove INDY'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'open_staking_position' (creation) and 'close_staking_position' (termination) by emphasizing 'existing' and partial modification.

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 implies prerequisites by specifying 'existing' position, suggesting an open position must exist first. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'close_staking_position' (e.g., whether removing 100% requires this tool or the close tool) and doesn't mention prerequisite validation.

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