bitpin_create_crypto_withdrawal

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose two important behaviors: authentication is required and the request is not final until OTP confirmation. It does not cover irreversibility, fee handling, address/network validation, or failure behavior, which matter for a financial mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the OTP requirement immediately following. Nothing is wasted, though 'Requires authentication' is somewhat generic boilerplate.

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 5-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, it covers auth and the OTP flow but omits what the response contains, how the subsequent verification is performed, and any constraints around fees or limits. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 all five parameters, including memo and Persian numeral support, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource: submitting a cryptocurrency withdrawal request to an external blockchain wallet. The 'external blockchain wallet' scoping implicitly distinguishes it from internal/IRT withdrawal siblings, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

It states a precondition (authentication) and a follow-up step (OTP confirmation), which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over bitpin_create_internal_withdrawal or bitpin_create_irt_withdrawal, leaving that to inference.

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