fluid_build_lending_withdraw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that it burns fToken shares and returns an unsigned transaction (implying no immediate state change). This is useful context about the tool's side effects and execution path, though it omits additional details like authorization requirements or output format.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds a key detail (burning shares) in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains the purpose and core mechanism well. However, it could improve by clarifying the difference from the sibling 'redeem' tool or noting that the output is an unsigned transaction object. Still, the essential context is present.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond the general purpose (e.g., that the amount is underlying assets), which is already stated in the schema. The missing field in schema (rpc_url) is self-explanatory, so no compensation needed.

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 tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Build an unsigned transaction to withdraw underlying assets from a Fluid fToken lending pool.' It also names the key action (burning fToken shares), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deposit, mint, or native versions.

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 by describing the withdrawal context ('withdraw underlying assets from a Fluid fToken lending pool'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like fluid_build_lending_redeem or the native withdraw tool. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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