sbtc_withdraw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a fund-moving operation. It says a peg-out is initiated but omits irreversibility, signer fees/maxFee behavior, timing to BTC L1 confirmation, and the fact that settlement must be polled via a status tool — significant gaps for a value-transfer call.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the alias and the core action come first. The trailing earning_opportunities tip is promotional and not needed to invoke this tool, slightly diluting focus.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation of BTC-denominated assets, the description gives the what but not the lifecycle: no statement of what is returned (tx id?), no pointer to sbtc_withdrawal_status for completion, and no failure modes. The fully documented schema covers inputs, so this is adequate but clearly incomplete.

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% (amount in satoshis, btcRecipientAddress types, fee preset vs micro-STX, maxFee, sponsored), so the schema already does the parameter work. The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case.

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: initiates an sBTC peg-out request to BTC L1. It also declares itself an alias for sbtc_initiate_withdrawal, which lets an agent distinguish it from the near-named siblings sbtc_withdrawal_status / sbtc_withdraw_status and from sbtc_transfer.

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 alias note tells the agent this is interchangeable with sbtc_initiate_withdrawal, which usefully prevents redundant discovery, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer one over the other, no preconditions (sBTC balance, funded wallet), and no mention of how to track the withdrawal afterwards.

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