atstake_transfer_shares

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that transfers are free but value-destroying, that voting weight moves with the balance, that shares are map entries so no fungible-token post-condition can guard the call, that the market must be trading, and that an unlocked wallet is required. This is an unusually complete risk profile for an irreversible mutation.

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 action, then layered warnings in descending importance — value loss, then vote implications, then technical caveats. Every sentence earns its place except the trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities', which is a tangential cross-sell unrelated to executing a transfer.

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 3-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the failure modes (market closed, wallet locked), the irreversibility/non-guardability of the call, and the economic side effects. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 both the side enum and recipient semantics are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'amount' also moves legion voting weight ('sending 1,000 bonded shares hands the recipient a vote'), which directly informs how an agent should size the call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send shares of one side to another principal') and immediately scopes it against the sibling operations by warning 'Do not use this to take a side.' An agent can distinguish this from atstake_mint_complete_set, atstake_merge_complete_set, and the buy/sell tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('Only works while the market trades') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use this to take a side'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name the specific sibling tool to use instead for taking a side, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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