earn_withdraw

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses key behavioral details: funds stop earning rewards after withdrawal, the first call without confirm=true returns a preview, and the operation status ENUM is defined. It also flags the [PRIVATE] nature of the confirmation requirement, giving the agent an accurate model of the tool's side effects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: destination, reward consequence, return details, balance-check prerequisite, status enum, and preview/confirm behavior. It is slightly dense but well-organized, earning a strong score.

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 destructive financial mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the operation does, the consequences, how to check balance, the operation statuses, and the preview/confirm safety flow. It does not fully specify the return payload structure beyond 'operation details with type: withdrawal,' but that is adequate for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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%, so the schema already explains all six parameters. The description reinforces the confirm=true behavior and mentions the destination pocket, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline, but no extra semantic value is added.

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 ('Withdraw'), a precise resource ('Earn (Staking)') and a destination ('Simple Wallet pocket'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings like earn_deposit and pro_withdraw by the Earn-to-Simple-Wallet direction, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: use earn_get_positions to check balance ahead of withdrawing, and the two-step preview-then-confirm calling pattern. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the clear Earn context and the confirmation flow provide enough practical direction for correct use.

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