Staking Unstake S O L

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about confirming validator, amount, and ownership before writes, but this is more cautionary than behavioral disclosure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 the key action first. It includes protocol context and usage notes without excessive verbosity. Could be slightly more streamlined.

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 (simple two-parameter staking operation), the description covers the purpose, usage context, and necessary precautions. An output schema exists (not shown) to explain return values. Adequately complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, which already describes wallet as 'Solana public key (base58)' and stakeAccount as 'Stake account to deactivate and withdraw'. The confirmation advice is tangential.

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 'Deactivate and withdraw SOL from a stake account' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like staking_stakeSOL and staking_getStakeAccounts by focusing on unstaking SOL.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool ('For SOL and liquid staking flows') and suggests verifying terms before use. It differentiates between SAP staking tools and AgentKit staking tools, but does not explicitly state 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.