unstake_stargate_nft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and explicitly discloses the key destructive effect: 'burn it'. It also specifies the reward (retrieve staked VET). However, it omits other behavioral details such as ownership requirements, maturity locks, or failure conditions.

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 12-word sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or repetition.

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?

For a one-parameter state-changing tool, the description states the core effect and purpose clearly. However, it lacks context about when to invoke it (e.g., after maturity) and what conditions must hold, making it minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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 schema fully documents tokenId as 'Token ID to unstake', and the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the action. Baseline 3 applies due to 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 uses the specific verb 'Unstake' with the resource 'StarGate NFT' and clearly states the result 'burn it and retrieve the staked VET'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nft_burn (generic burn) and get_user_stakes (read-only).

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 the usage—for exiting a StarGate NFT stake—but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like claim_vtho_rewards or can_transfer_stargate_nft. It does not state prerequisites or when-not-to-use.

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