withdraw_collateral

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that the tool likely initiates a blockchain transaction, requires signing, has potential cost, or what happens on success/failure. The single sentence omits all side effects and 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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is beneficial for brevity but lacks essential information. While it is front-loaded with the core action, it is too minimal for a tool that likely performs a complex, irreversible action.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the return value, error handling, or how this tool fits into a workflow with sibling tools like 'get_user_vaults' or 'analyze_vault_risk'. The description leaves significant gaps for the AI agent.

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?

The description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond the input schema. Only one parameter (network) has a schema description, and the description does not explain what cdpId, ilk, or amount represent or how to obtain them. Schema coverage is low (25%), and the description does not compensate.

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 specifies the action ('withdraw'), the resource ('collateral'), and the context ('from an existing vault'). It distinguishes itself from similarly named sibling tools like 'withdraw_savings' and others like 'deposit_and_mint' or 'close_vault'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., 'vault must exist and have sufficient collateral'), nor does it differentiate from related tools like 'close_vault' or 'deposit_and_mint'.

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