Solentic

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

Annotations cover read/write status (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=false), and destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: it specifies that the transaction is 'unsigned' (implying it needs signing before submission), mentions a cooldown period ('~2-3 days'), and clarifies the outcome ('funds become withdrawable at epoch end'), enhancing understanding of the tool's 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential behavioral details (cooldown, alternative tool) in the second. Both sentences are necessary and contribute directly to understanding the tool's use, with no 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (transaction creation with a cooldown), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral traits. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the stake authority's wallet), but the schema hints at this, and overall it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (walletAddress as 'stake authority', stakeAccountAddress as 'account to deactivate'). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Build an unsigned transaction to deactivate (unstake) a stake account'), identifies the resource ('stake account'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'withdraw_stake' by specifying this is for creating an unstake transaction, not withdrawing funds.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to deactivate (unstake) a stake account') and when to use an alternative ('Use withdraw_stake after cooldown completes'), clearly differentiating it from the sibling 'withdraw_stake' tool for post-deactivation withdrawal.

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