Prepare Strata Vault withdrawal

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds 'owner-authorized' and 'exact' which are useful context, but does not disclose what happens after preparation (e.g., does it create a transaction? Does it require a subsequent submit step?). No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient, though it could add a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the workflow (prepare vs submit), what the output is, or any side effects. Sibling tools like strata_vault_submit suggest a multi-step process, but this description doesn't clarify the tool's role in that process.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'destination wallet' and 'amount' implicitly, but does not explain the meaning of walletAddress, marketId, assetId, or amountAtoms beyond what the schema patterns show. The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Prepare an exact owner-authorized withdrawal') and the resource ('Strata Vault') with a destination wallet. It distinguishes from sibling tools like strata_vault_deposit and strata_vault_submit by specifying 'withdrawal' and 'owner-authorized', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 description implies usage for preparing a withdrawal, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like strata_vault_submit or strata_vault_pause. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., vault setup, authorization) or when not to use it.

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