withdraw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It provides useful context: the testnet-only constraint and the -1 withdraw-all sentinel. But it does not disclose potential side effects, such as health-factor impacts, collateral implications, or failure conditions when withdrawing supplied assets.

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 compact sentences deliver the core action, the critical -1 edge case, and the testnet-only constraint. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the purpose, special value, and environment. It lacks only explicit guidance about side effects or sequencing with health-factor checks, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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%, and both asset and amount are clearly documented there. The description repeats the -1 sentinel already present in the schema, so it adds no new parameter meaning beyond emphasizing an edge case.

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 precise verb ('Withdraw'), a specific resource ('supplied asset from the Kaskad Protocol lending pool'), and a special behavior (amount=-1 means withdraw all). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like supply, borrow, repay, and unstakeKSKD.

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 usage through 'Withdraw a supplied asset' and adds the important environment note 'Testnet only.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as repay or unstakeKSKD, nor state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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