unstake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It notes that the action begins an unlock countdown and requires PRIVATE_KEY, which is useful. However, it does not mention reversibility, side effects, or what happens after the countdown, leaving some behavioral 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 two short sentences: one defining the action and one stating the prerequisite. Every word earns its place, no unnecessary detail.

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?

The description adequately conveys the core function and prerequisite, and the schema handles parameter details. It is reasonably complete for a transactional tool, though it could briefly mention the link to unstake_redeem or the overall flow. Given the schema richness, this is sufficient.

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 provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters (share, poolIndex, stakePoolIndex), covering semantics fully. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, and since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Begin unstaking TLP' and adds the distinctive 'starts the unlock countdown', making it specific to initiating a timed process. This distinguishes it from siblings like unstake_redeem or redeem_tlp which likely handle later steps.

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 usage for starting the unstaking process and mentions the PRIVATE_KEY prerequisite, but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Clear context but no exclusions or alternative references.

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