q402_unstake

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses this is a WRITE operation that moves funds, explains the gasless mechanism (Mode C, server-signed, relayer-sponsored gas), per-record execution, confirmation requirements (confirm:true + consentToken), and references 'uncertain-retry semantics' and gates from q402_stake. This is rich behavioral context.

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 relatively long but well-structured with clear labels (WRITE, PER-RECORD, REQUIRES CONFIRMATION) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information about execution mode, parameter semantics, or prerequisites. Slight density but appropriate for the complexity.

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 tool is complex (per-record unstaking, confirmation flow, gasless execution), and the description covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, and safety checks. It does not detail return values for preview vs confirm, but given no output schema exists, this is not strictly required. It also references 'uncertain-retry semantics' without expounding, which is a minor gap.

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%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'all' and 'ith' are mutually exclusive, indicates 'ith' originates from q402_stake_positions, and describes the two-phase consent/confirmation flow. This goes beyond the basic property descriptions in 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 clearly identifies the tool's action: unstaking matured Q from QuackAiStake on BNB back to the wallet. It specifies the resource (Agent Wallet's stake), the protocol (QuackAiStake), and the network (BNB), and distinguishes it from siblings like q402_stake_pending or other actions.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use q402_stake_positions first to identify exitable records, and explains the 'ith' vs 'all' distinction. It notes a stake can only be unstaked after its lock elapses, giving a clear precondition. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but names the prerequisite tool and gives context for when this tool is appropriate.

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