Staking Unstake Solayer

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is a write operation and warns to confirm terms, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, side effects, or response specifics. The existing output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 4 sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. It could be slightly more efficient by merging the warning sentence, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 has an output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's context, including usage flows and precautions. It does not explain prerequisites like sSOL balance, but the overall completeness is sufficient for a write tool with schema support.

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 covers both parameters with complete descriptions (amount and wallet). The description does not add additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 'Unstake sSOL back to SOL via Solayer', providing a clear verb (unstake) and resource (sSOL to SOL). It distinguishes from siblings like staking_unstakeSOL (for regular SOL) by specifying 'via Solayer'.

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 using this tool for SOL and liquid staking flows and instructs to use SAP staking tools for SAP protocol accounts and AgentKit for external protocols. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling unstake tools like staking_unstakeSOL or staking_unstakeJupSOL, which are more directly related.

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