Create DRep Retirement Certificate

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

The annotations already declare that the tool is not read-only, idempotent, and destructive, which is critical safety information. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what happens to the DRep's registration, whether the deposit is automatically refunded, or any side effects. It merely restates the title and lists parameters already present in the schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, but the 'Args' section duplicates the input schema's parameter descriptions without adding value, which is redundant. While not verbose, the second half does not earn its place given the 100% schema coverage.

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 destructive nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain the return value or the side effects of creating a retirement certificate (e.g., de-registration). Instead, it only provides the name and repeats schema parameters, leaving the agent without necessary context about what the certificate accomplishes or how to interpret results.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description repeats the same parameter descriptions verbatim, adding no new meaning or formatting details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb 'Create' and a specific resource 'DRep retirement certificate', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cardano_governance_drep_registration_certificate and cardano_stake_pool_retirement_certificate. An agent can immediately identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a DRep should be retired versus updated. There are no prerequisites or contextual conditions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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