release_collateral

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the need for PRIVATE_KEY but says nothing about the effect on the position, irreversibility, gas costs, or return value. For a mutation tool, this is under-specified.

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 that front-loads the action and includes a necessary prerequisite. It is appropriately minimal with no wasted words, making it highly scannable.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not mention what the tool returns, whether the withdrawal is permanent, or any side effects. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context is incomplete for a transaction-bearing tool.

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?

All three parameters have thorough schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning 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 the action ('Withdraw excess collateral') and the resource ('existing position'), using a specific verb that distinguishes it from sibling tools such as increase_collateral. The purpose is immediately apparent and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when excess collateral exists) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like increase_collateral. The only usage guideline provided is the requirement for PRIVATE_KEY in .env, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage context.

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