CDP withdraw collateral

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. While 'withdraw' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permission requirements, whether this action is reversible, potential side effects, or what happens to the withdrawn collateral. For a financial transaction tool, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 financial transaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and completely undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after withdrawal, what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects. The description should do more given the complexity and potential impact of the operation.

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 0% description coverage, so both parameters ('asset' and 'amount') are completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no additional information about what these parameters represent, their expected formats, units, or constraints. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meaning and usage.

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 ('withdraw') and resource ('collateral from a vault'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'strato.cdp.deposit' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'strato.cdp.withdraw-max' or 'strato.lending.withdraw-collateral', which are closely related operations.

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 like 'strato.cdp.withdraw-max' (presumably for maximum withdrawal) or 'strato.lending.withdraw-collateral' (which appears to be a similar operation in a different module). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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