reputation_unstake

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantive facts those fields cannot convey: stake stops counting toward tier/reputation immediately, funds are locked until a cooldown, and the cooldown details live in reputation_transparency. It also instructs the agent to confirm intent, which goes beyond the bare destructive flag. Minor gap: no mention of gas cost, insufficient-stake failure, or what the response contains.

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 second paragraph's opening sentence ('Use when you want to start the unbonding period for part of your active stake, with a signed nonce') nearly duplicates the first sentence verbatim, which is wasted space. The destructive warning is well placed at the end, and the remaining content is front-loaded and useful.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so only implicitly — it says funds are withdrawable later rather than describing the response. It compensates with the full lifecycle (unbond now, cooldown, withdraw via reputation_withdraw), which is the key context for a non-idempotent mutation.

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%, so all four parameters (nonce, amount, wallet, signature) are already documented, including the FRESH reputation_get_nonce requirement. The description restates that a signed nonce is needed but adds no format, constraint, minimum, or derivation detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — 'Start the unbonding period for `amount` of your active stake' — scoped to the [Wicked Reputation] system. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the collection step handled by reputation_withdraw, so an agent can pick it apart from the other reputation_* siblings.

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?

Provides both a when-to-use clause ('start the unbonding period for part of your active stake, with a signed nonce') and an explicit when-not with the correct alternative ('Not for collecting funds (use reputation_withdraw once the cooldown has passed)'). The routing to the next step in the workflow is unambiguous.

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