nt200_withdraw_txn

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

With no annotations, the description conveys that the tool builds an unsigned transaction (no immediate side effects), supports specific asset types, requires opt-in, and produces a single transaction. This goes beyond the schema but could mention more about the returned object or failure modes.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides useful information: the action, the assets, the prerequisite, and the transaction structure.

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?

Considering no output schema, the description implies the return value (an unsigned transaction) and includes key context (asset types, opt-in requirement, single txn). It is sufficient for selection but could benefit from stating the return format or edge cases.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal per-parameter detail beyond naming 'amount' in the function call, so it meets the baseline but does not enrich beyond 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 it builds an unsigned NT200 withdraw transaction, specifies the action (withdraw), the resource (ARC-200 wrapped network tokens or ASAs), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nt200_deposit_txn and arc200_transfer_txn.

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?

It provides clear context for use (withdrawing/unwrapping) and a prerequisite (token holder must be opted in). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context and sibling names make the intended usage clear.

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