moolah_withdraw_collateral

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'max' requires no active borrows, and withdrawing too much while borrowing will revert. It also suggests checking health factor. No contradictions with annotations.

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: two sentences. The first sentence defines the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage constraints. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, destructive hint, no output schema), the description adequately covers usage, special cases, and safety warnings. It could optionally mention return values (e.g., transaction hash), but not necessary for a withdraw action.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (amount, network, marketId). The description adds meaning by explaining the special value 'max' for amount and the condition for its use, going beyond the schema's pattern and description.

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 action 'withdraw collateral from a Moolah market' and distinguishes from sibling tools like moolah_supply_collateral, moolah_borrow, etc. The special case of using 'max' and the condition of no active borrows further clarify the tool's specific purpose.

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 guidance on when to use (withdrawing collateral) and when not (with active borrows if not using max, or withdrawing too much while borrowing). It advises checking health factor first, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for withdrawing from other contexts (e.g., generic withdraw).

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