sap_request_unstake

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Request unstake' without explaining if it's a blockchain transaction, required permissions, side effects, or any important behavioral traits like idempotency 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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too brief to be highly informative. It achieves conciseness at the expense of completeness, scoring a 3.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and the existence of a related sibling tool (sap_complete_unstake), the description should have provided process context (e.g., 'Creates an unstake request that must be completed with sap_complete_unstake'). It fails to do so, making it incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter names and descriptions for both 'amount' and 'agentWallet'. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline 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 'Request unstake for an agent wallet' specifies the action (request), target (agent wallet), and resource (unstake). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sap_complete_unstake (completes the unstake process) and sap_deposit_stake (adds stake).

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having stake to unstake), that this is likely a first step followed by sap_complete_unstake, or any context about the two-step unstaking process.

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