reputation_withdraw

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so 'DESTRUCTIVE and not reversible' largely restates them, but the description adds real value beyond annotations: the payout is batched into one transfer, retry after a failed payout is safe, and a signed nonce is required. It does not describe what is returned (amounts, tx hash), which is a minor gap for a destructive tool with no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then behavior, with no wasted filler. There is mild redundancy between the opening sentence and the 'Use when' sentence, which restates the cooldown-elapsed condition.

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?

All three required parameters are documented, the destructive/irreversible behavior and sibling alternative are covered, and annotations carry the safety profile. Only the absence of any return-value context (payout amount, transaction reference) keeps it shy of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents wallet, nonce, and signature in detail, including the 'FRESH' nonce constraint. The description only echoes that a signed nonce is needed, adding no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource: pays out matured unbonding stakes in a single on-chain transfer. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from reputation_unstake, so an agent can route between the two without inspecting schemas.

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?

States the triggering condition (cooldown elapsed, matured stakes exist) and the exclusion with the named alternative ('Not for starting the unbonding (use reputation_unstake)'). Both the when and when-not are explicit.

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