pillar_direct_unwind

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral facts: the operation is agent-signed with no browser, it executes as an ordered swap-then-withdraw sequence, and the backend sponsors gas. It omits failure behavior (what happens if `minAeUsdcFromSwap` is not met), whether the position is fully closed or partially reduced, and any auth/permission requirements.

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 outcome, then the mechanism, then the gas note, then a tip. Every sentence is short and purposeful. The trailing `earning_opportunities` tip is mild cross-sell noise that doesn't help invoke this tool.

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-parameter destructive financial operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains mechanics and gas but leaves preconditions, result format, and partial-vs-full unwind semantics unspecified. It is adequate to start the call but not to predict the outcome.

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 all three parameters are already documented with units (sats, 6 decimals) and slippage semantics. The description's swap-then-withdraw narrative corroborates those parameters but adds no format, range, or edge-case detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Close or reduce your leveraged sBTC position', followed by the exact two-step mechanism (swap sBTC→aeUSDC to repay debt, then withdraw remaining collateral). 'Agent-signed, no browser needed' implicitly distinguishes it from the hosted `pillar_unwind` sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the agent must infer the `pillar_direct_*` vs `pillar_*` split.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'close or reduce your leveraged sBTC position', which tells the agent the triggering situation. However, it never states prerequisites (an existing position must exist), nor does it point to `pillar_direct_withdraw_collateral` for partial-collateral-only withdrawal or to `pillar_direct_boost`/`pillar_direct_supply` as the inverse operations. The only cross-reference is an unrelated tip to `earning_opportunities`.

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