withdraw_votes_to_jst

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is clear. The description adds the important behavioral detail about the locked-vote restriction, but does not elaborate on return values or side effects beyond the expected.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds constraint, third advises a prerequisite. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 simple mutation tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and prerequisite. The only omission is a mention of what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash), but given the tool's simplicity and the context of sibling tooling, it is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (amount and network) are described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (withdraw WJST back to JST) and specifies a constraint (only votes not locked in active proposals). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like withdraw_votes_from_proposal.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (only for free votes) and advises checking surplus with get_vote_info first, providing clear guidance on prerequisites and alternatives.

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