Request SAP Unstake

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. Description adds confirmation context but omits details on what the request entails (e.g., transaction submission or pending state creation).

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?

Three sentences are efficient and front-loaded: purpose, context, then guidance. No extraneous words; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 an output schema exists, return value omission is acceptable. However, the description lacks detail on the overall flow (e.g., subsequent steps like sap_complete_unstake) and could better address the protocol's sequential nature.

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 descriptions cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Request unstake for an agent wallet,' specifying the verb (request unstake) and resource (agent wallet). It also provides SAP protocol context and distinguishes from external AgentKit staking tools, ensuring no ambiguity.

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 advises confirming wallet, amount, and timing before writes and notes distinctness from external tools, but does not specify when to use this tool versus internal siblings like sap_complete_unstake, leaving room for confusion.

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