unstake_stx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that STX stays locked through the current reward cycle, unlocks next cycle, and is refused during the prepare phase, but it omits permissions, irreversibility, fees, and expected response.

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, lock behavior, and refusal condition. The trailing tip about earning_opportunities is relevant but slightly promotional rather than essential invocation guidance.

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 zero-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, timing, and refusal condition well. Some behavioral details remain absent, but the low schema complexity keeps the description reasonably complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the rubric. The description correctly does not invent parameter details where no parameters exist.

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: 'Stop a PoX-5 stake early.' It names the protocol action and scope, making it clearly distinct from related stacking tools such as stack_stx or extend_stacking.

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 phrase 'Stop ... early' implies the use case, and 'Refused during the prepare phase' gives an important timing constraint. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives like extend_stacking or explain prerequisites such as having an active stake.

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