Lends Prepare Cancel Expired Unstake

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the key behavioral fact that this is a transaction preparation step, not an execution step, and clarifies the purpose as recovering shares. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 is a single focused sentence with no filler. The intent is front-loaded ('Construct a transaction') and the purpose is immediately clear. 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?

For a one-parameter prepare tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core domain, the transaction-constructing behavior, and the scenario (expired unstake). It does not define 'expired' or describe the returned transaction's shape, but the sibling context and schema make the tool usable without that detail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented requestId. It indirectly indicates that requestId refers to the expired unstake request, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter or its semantics. The single parameter is simple and inferable, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action ('Construct a transaction') and the specific purpose ('recover shares from an expired unstake request'). The word 'expired' distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_complete_unstake, so an agent can tell which operation this is without opening the 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?

The description provides a clear usage context: it should be used for an expired unstake request where shares need to be recovered. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'expired' condition is a strong enough signal for typical selection.

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