icp_cycles_withdraw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or potential failure conditions. For a mutating operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. All information presented is relevant and immediately actionable.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema. The description is too sparse to convey the full behavioral context, such as what happens on success, whether the operation is reversible, or any prerequisites. The schema covers parameters but not runtime behavior, leaving the agent underinformed.

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% with both parameters clearly described. The tool description adds the directional context ('from Cycles Ledger to a canister') but doesn't provide additional format, units, or constraints beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Withdraw cycles') on a specific resource ('Cycles Ledger') directed to a canister. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like icp_cycles_balance (balance check) and icp_top_up_canister (likely a different funding operation).

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 usage context is implied: use this when you want to withdraw cycles from the Cycles Ledger to a canister. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like icp_top_up_canister or icp_transfer. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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