unwrap_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and failure modes. It clearly states that all fuses are cleared upon unwrapping and that it will fail permanently if CANNOT_UNWRAP has been burned. This is important destructive behavior disclosed upfront. It could mention the owner requirement or the resulting token recipient, but lacks detail on the return value or gas requirements.

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 appropriately sized: a single-sentence summary, a two-sentence technical explanation, a warning about the failure condition, and three bullet-point use cases. Each element serves a purpose without redundancy or fluff. The structure is clear and scannable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the token conversion, the effect on fuses, a permanent failure condition, and when to use it. It does not explain what happens to the unwrapped token (e.g., who receives it) or any prerequisites like ownership verification, but for a simple two-parameter tool this is near-complete.

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 two parameters (name, owner). The description adds minimal extra meaning: it calls 'owner' the 'current wrapped name owner' in prose, but that is already in the schema description. No additional parameter details are given, so the description does not exceed the baseline value provided by the schema.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Unwrap a .eth name from the ENS NameWrapper back to BaseRegistrar.' It clearly distinguishes this from related tools (e.g., wrap_name) by stating the token type conversion (ERC-1155 to ERC-721) and the effect of clearing all fuses. This is unambiguous and specific.

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 'Use cases' section provides concrete scenarios (reverting to ERC-721 for compatibility, regaining full control, moving to platforms supporting ERC-721) that clarify when to use this tool. It also implies a limitation (cannot unwrap if CANNOT_UNWRAP is burned), which serves as a condition for use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., wrap_name or manage_fuses) or state when not to use it beyond the burned fuse condition.

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