unstake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the waiting period, which is a key consequence, but does not mention that this is a blockchain transaction, its reversibility, or the effect on staked balances. Some disclosure is present but gaps remain.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action, the second adds the essential waiting-period consequence. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 state-changing staking operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and waiting period, but lacks information about the transaction result, the follow-up withdraw step, or prerequisites. This leaves some context gaps for an 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 input schema already describes all three parameters (amount, protocol, accountId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool's function: requesting unstaking of liquid staking tokens. It distinguishes itself from staking (stake_near) and withdrawal (withdraw) by explicitly noting it initiates a process with a waiting period, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context that this is the initial unstaking step ('Initiates the unstaking process'), which implies use before withdraw. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a full 5.

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