withdraw_votes_to_jst

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, consistent with a withdrawal. The description adds important context about the lock constraint on votes. However, it does not mention potential fees or the transaction cost, which would add further value.

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 core action. No unnecessary words, every sentence provides value.

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 description is complete for a simple mutation tool with no output schema. It explains prerequisites and constraints. However, it could optionally mention the transaction hash return or any side effects like JST balance updates.

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%: both 'amount' and 'network' have descriptions. The tool description does not add new information beyond the schema for the parameters, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 action: 'Withdraw WJST back to JST.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'deposit_jst_for_votes' (the reverse) and 'withdraw_votes_from_proposal' (different scope).

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Can only withdraw votes that are not currently locked in active proposals. Use get_vote_info to check your surplus (available) votes before withdrawing.' This provides clear precondition and a prerequisite step.

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