moolah_vault_withdraw

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (mutation) and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds one behavioral trait ('No approval needed'), which is helpful but does not cover other aspects like side effects, success conditions, or error handling. It adds value beyond annotations, but not extensively.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no wasted words. The key tip about 'max' is included efficiently.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema; the description covers the core functionality and a key usage tip. It relies on the schema for parameter details (vaultSymbol, network) and annotations for safety profile, which is acceptable. A brief note on side effects (e.g., vault balance update) would make it 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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond reinforcing the 'max' usage. The baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 that the tool withdraws underlying assets from a Moolah vault, specifying the action (withdraw), resource (Moolah vault), and the asset type (underlying assets). It also highlights the special value 'max' for full withdrawal, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like moolah_vault_deposit.

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 mentions 'No approval needed,' which is a useful precondition, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like withdraw_all or moolah_vault_redeem. Given the many sibling tools, clearer usage differentiation would improve the score.

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