withdraw

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

The description discloses one key behavioral trait: it fails if withdrawal would make account negative. However, with no annotations, it doesn't mention other important behaviors such as authentication requirements, reversibility, or side effects (e.g., affecting cash balance).

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?

One sentence, action-first, no unnecessary words. It effectively front-loads the core purpose.

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 simple, but with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description leaves the agent to guess parameter semantics and when to use it. The output schema helps, but the description is too thin to be self-sufficient.

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?

The schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about what 'account', 'amount', 'agent', or 'idempotency_key' mean or their formats. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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 states the action ('Remove cash') and the resource ('paper account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like deposit and order_submit. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling comparisons. The user must infer usage from the name and context.

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