agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Removes liquidity' implies a destructive write operation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, gas costs, confirmation requirements, whether the action is reversible, or what happens to removed liquidity. This is a significant gap for a financial transaction tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 financial transaction tool with 5 parameters (3 required), no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what the parameters mean, or the behavioral implications of removing liquidity from a Uniswap position.

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 for all 5 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'tokenId', 'liquidity', 'slippageTolerance', 'deadline', or 'chainId' mean or how they should be formatted. The description doesn't compensate for this complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 ('Removes liquidity') and target resource ('from a Uniswap V3 position'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'intentIncreaseLiquidity' or 'intentCollectFees', which are related liquidity management operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'intentIncreaseLiquidity' (for adding liquidity) or 'intentCollectFees' (for collecting fees from positions). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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