Withdraw a Uniswap V3 position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers well. It discloses the cost ($0.01 USDG), the automatic WETH unwrapping behavior, and the crucial fact that it returns unsigned steps requiring further broadcast. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know to use the tool correctly.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds essential information: what it does, the cost, a key edge-case behavior, and the required follow-up action. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical context: the source of tokenId, the cost, the auto-unwrap, and the need to broadcast results. It doesn't cover error cases or what happens if the position is invalid, but the essential workflow is well explained.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that tokenId should come from liquidity_add or liquidity_positions, providing context not present in the schema. It doesn't elaborate on the burn parameter, but the schema already describes it sufficiently.

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 identifies the specific action: 'Withdraws and collects a Uniswap V3 liquidity position on Robinhood Chain by tokenId'. It also distinguishes this from related sibling tools by referencing the source of tokenId ('from liquidity_add or liquidity_positions') and the downstream broadcast tool, making its role in the workflow explicit.

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 usage context: the tokenId comes from liquidity_add or liquidity_positions, and the result should be passed to the broadcast tool for signing. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, but the workflow guidance is strong enough to infer appropriate usage.

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