botwallet_confirm_withdrawal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a write operation ('Complete'), requires prior approval, and involves 'FROST threshold signing' for on-chain authorization. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'complete' entails operationally (e.g., irreversible transaction).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and prerequisite, the second adds technical context (FROST signing). Every word earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, prerequisite, and technical mechanism but lacks details on permissions, side effects, return values, or error handling. Given the complexity (cryptographic signing operation), more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 fully documents the 'transaction_id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it comes from 'withdrawal or approval event,' which is already covered by the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Complete a withdrawal') and resource ('withdrawal that was previously approved by the owner'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'botwallet_withdraw' (initiate withdrawal) and 'botwallet_get_withdrawal' (retrieve withdrawal info). It provides the exact verb and scope needed for agent understanding.

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 this tool: for withdrawals 'previously approved by the owner,' implying it should not be used for initiating new withdrawals or checking approval status (handled by siblings like 'botwallet_withdraw' and 'botwallet_approval_status'). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the prerequisite.

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