zest_withdraw

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the operation is atomic, it removes collateral AND redeems underlying, and it is mainnet-only. It omits what an agent most needs for a mutation tool — wallet/permission requirements, gas/fee implications, and what happens if outstanding borrows make collateral removal unsafe.

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 and mechanism, followed by a short note and a cross-reference tip; no filler sentences. The closing 'Tip' line is optional ecosystem promotion rather than invocation guidance, which slightly dilutes focus but is short enough not to hurt.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the unit semantics but leaves the agent without required-state context (must a position already exist?) and return behavior (does it report amounts redeemed or a tx hash?). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and both parameters are already described there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's share-denomination note and asset-symbol-vs-contract-ID hint largely restate what the schema says, adding emphasis but no new syntax or constraint information.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Withdraw assets from Zest Protocol') plus the market version, and the second sentence clarifies the mechanism (collateral removal + redemption of underlying in one atomic operation). This is easily distinguishable from sibling tools zest_supply, zest_borrow, and zest_repay.

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 concrete preconditions — mainnet only, amount denominated in zToken shares rather than underlying — and points to `earning_opportunities` as a follow-up. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as zest_repay (for clearing debt) or a plain token transfer, so routing among siblings still requires inference.

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