close_staking_position

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Valuably discloses return format ('unsigned transaction CBOR hex') and signing requirement ('client-side signing'), which is critical behavioral context not in schema. Could improve by mentioning transaction fees or irreversibility.

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 sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with action and scope, followed by output format. 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?

Compensates well for missing output schema by describing return value (unsigned CBOR hex). Parameters are fully documented via schema. Minor gap: could mention Cardano blockchain context or error conditions (e.g., position not found).

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% (all 3 params well-documented). Description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in schema, meeting baseline expectations when schema is comprehensive.

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?

Specific verb ('Close') + specific resource ('INDY staking position') + specific scope ('unstake all INDY'). The phrase 'unstake all' clearly distinguishes this from sibling 'adjust_staking_position' (partial changes) and 'open_staking_position' (creation).

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?

Provides clear context that this is for complete exit ('close', 'unstake all'), implicitly distinguishing it from partial adjustments. However, lacks explicit 'when-to-use' guidance naming the sibling alternative for partial unstaking.

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