intentUnstakeNani

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Unstake' which implies a write operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like permission requirements, transaction costs, reversibility, or potential side effects (e.g., lock-up periods). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, effectively front-loading the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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?

Given the tool involves a write operation (unstaking) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or operational context, which are crucial for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in a financial or blockchain environment.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('amount' and 'chainId'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 ('Unstake') and the resource ('xNANI tokens back to NANI tokens'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'intentStakeNani' or 'intentCoinchanClaimVested', which might involve similar token operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other staking or token conversion tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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