Bridge request withdrawal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'submit a withdrawal request' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens after submission (pending state? immediate execution?), rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 maximally concise with a single clear sentence. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is insufficient for the tool's 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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, bridge operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, security implications, or how this withdrawal differs from other withdrawal tools in the system. For a financial bridge operation, this level of documentation is inadequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters (4 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'externalChainId', 'stratoToken', 'stratoTokenAmount', 'externalRecipient', or 'targetStratoToken' mean, their formats, or relationships. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Submit a withdrawal request') and target ('to an external chain'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'strato.cdp.withdraw' or 'strato.lending.withdraw-liquidity', which appear to handle different types of withdrawals within the system.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other withdrawal tools in the sibling list, or any context about what constitutes an 'external chain' withdrawal versus internal withdrawals.

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