Create Stake Deregistration Certificate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - it never mentions the deposit refund, that an existing registration is required, or any side effects of deregistering.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the following Args list duplicates the input schema's descriptions word-for-word, adding length without new information.

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 destructive certificate-creation tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: it names inputs and implies no return value. It omits meaningful context such as the deposit-refund implication and the requirement that a registration exists, which an agent would need.

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 already documents all three parameters; the Args block simply restates those same descriptions verbatim. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting details beyond the schema.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ('Create a stake address deregistration certificate'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling cardano_stake_address_registration_certificate and cardano_stake_address_delegation_certificate tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the registration or delegation certificate siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the stake key must be currently registered). It only states what the tool does, not when or why.

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