Drift Withdraw

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

Annotations already indicate destructive hint (true) and read-only hint (false). The description adds no extra behavioral context about side effects, authorization requirements, or potential errors. It merely restates the tool's purpose without elaboration.

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 brief with two sentences. The first sentence is direct and efficient. The second sentence provides SAP context, which may be helpful but is not essential for core usage. No wasted words, but slightly longer than necessary.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return details are covered. However, the description lacks context about account requirements, minimum balance, or error scenarios. It is adequate for a straightforward withdrawal but not comprehensive for an agent making autonomous decisions.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning or clarifications beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not beneficial. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action ('Withdraw tokens') and the resource ('from a Drift account'), which is clear and specific. It distinguishes from sibling drift tools (drift_deposit, drift_borrow, etc.) by the verb. However, it does not directly differentiate from similar withdrawal tools in other protocols.

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 SAP MCP context but no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like Drift deposit, lend, or other withdrawal tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing account, sufficient balance) or when not to use it.

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