removeLiquidity

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and readOnly=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: the rate limit (5 req/s UID), the behavior that omitting removeRate or setting it to 0 means 100% redemption, and that Normal removeType means proportional redemption of both coins. It does not explicitly restate the hard-to-reverse nature, but the confirm parameter's schema description covers that, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. Parameter nuances and the rate limit are organized in short bullets. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition of schema details or 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?

For a high-risk, destructive mutation with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It provides the key removeRate/removeType behavior and rate limit, and the schema's confirm description adds safety context, but productId, positionId, and orderLinkId semantics are not explained, and success/result behavior is not described. This makes it adequate for a basic call but incomplete for fully informed invocation.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for removeRate and removeType, both of which lack semantic descriptions in the schema. However, required fields like productId, positionId, and orderLinkId remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the compensation is only partial.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Withdraw funds from a Liquidity Mining pool position.' This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like addLiquidity, claimLiquidityInterest, and getLiquidityMiningPositions without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 opening sentence implies when to use the tool (withdrawing funds from a liquidity mining position), but it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. For example, it does not mention that claimLiquidityInterest or reinvestLiquidity serve different but related purposes. The usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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