ramzinex_confirm_withdraw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It warns that the action moves real funds and is irreversible. It also describes the error condition when withdrawals are disabled, providing clear behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a warning, Persian purpose, prerequisites, API mapping, and parameter list. It is slightly verbose but efficient, with no redundant sentences.

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?

Despite no annotations and zero schema coverage for parameters, the description provides thorough context: purpose, prerequisites, behavior, parameter details, and the irreversible nature. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation.

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?

All four parameters are described in detail in the description, including expected content (non-empty for codes, numeric for withdraw_id) and source (from ramzinex_submit_withdraw). The schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description adds full semantic value.

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 tool confirms a pending withdrawal with 2FA codes, explicitly warning that it moves real funds and finalizes an irreversible action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ramzinex_submit_withdraw by mentioning the pending state.

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 explicitly lists prerequisites: configured credentials, enable_withdrawals=true, and read_only=false. It describes error behavior when conditions are not met. However, it does not mention when to avoid using the tool or alternative approaches.

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