magicblock withdraw

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that the tool builds an unsigned transaction and mentions a builder fee, which provides extra behavioral context. However, it does not detail what side effects occur (e.g., token destruction) or prerequisites for operation.

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 concise with two sentences: the first clearly states the action, the second provides follow-up steps and mentions the fee. No extraneous information, making it efficient for an agent to read.

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's complexity (9 parameters, output schema present), the description is brief and may leave an agent without sufficient context about the Ephemeral Rollup process, the meaning of optional parameters, or the expected output. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The tool description does not add additional semantics or context to the parameters, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'withdraw' and the resource 'SPL tokens from an Ephemeral Rollup back to Solana'. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like magicblock_deposit or magicblock_swap, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 basic usage flow by advising to use sap_preview_transaction, sap_sign_transaction, and sap_submit_signed_transaction. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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