pro_withdraw

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only operation. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: immediate execution, two-phase confirm/preview flow, transfer status ENUM, and required verification steps. This goes well beyond the structured annotation data.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: direction of funds, prerequisite check, immediacy, verification step, status semantics, and the required confirmation sequence. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler.

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?

The description covers preconditions, execution flow, confirmation behavior, verification, and status outcomes. Even without an output schema, the status ENUM provides necessary response context. The remaining parameter details are already fully documented in the schema.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaning to confirm by explaining that omitting true returns a preview and that true should only be set after user consent, and it clarifies the source/destination context for amount, symbol, and to_pocket_id.

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 primary action and direction: withdrawing funds from Pro Trading back to Simple Wallet. This distinguishes it from related transfer tools like pro_deposit or earn_withdraw even without explicitly naming them.

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 concrete operational context: check pro_get_balance for availability, use wallet_get_pockets to verify, and call without confirm=true first. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the workflow guidance is strong and clear.

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