sbtc_initiate_withdrawal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses that the tool locks amount plus maxFee and creates an asynchronous withdrawal request processed later by signers, but it does not cover permissions, irreversibility, fee/sponsor behavior, or what identifying result the caller receives.

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 short and front-loads the core action and mechanism. The earning_opportunities tip is somewhat tangential for a withdrawal tool, keeping it just short of fully concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core locking and asynchronous signer flow. It still leaves gaps around prerequisites, permissions, return value or request tracking, and failure/reversal behavior.

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 all five parameters. The description adds that amount and maxFee are locked during initiation, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Initiate an sBTC peg-out to a Bitcoin L1 address.' It clearly distinguishes the action from deposit and status siblings, but it does not name or explain its relationship to close siblings like sbtc_withdraw or sbtc_withdrawal_status.

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 purpose implies when to use it: initiating an sBTC peg-out to Bitcoin L1. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over sbtc_withdraw or how to follow up with sbtc_withdrawal_status/sbtc_withdraw_status. The earning_opportunities tip does not clarify tool selection.

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