Solentic

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that the transaction is 'unsigned' (implying a separate submission step), mentions the 'cooldown' prerequisite, and clarifies the default behavior for 'amountSol'. Annotations cover safety (destructiveHint: false) but not these operational details.

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, followed by key constraints and usage notes in just two sentences. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a transaction-building tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the action, prerequisites, and parameter behavior. However, it could mention what the output looks like (e.g., a transaction object) or error conditions, given the complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the optionality and default behavior of 'amountSol', but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies.

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 withdraw SOL') and resource ('from a deactivated stake account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_unstake_transaction' or 'submit_transaction' by focusing on withdrawal after deactivation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('only works after cooldown completes') and mentions an alternative action ('omit amountSol to withdraw full balance'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to other tools like 'create_unstake_transaction'.

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