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. 'Withdraw' implies a mutation that reduces collateral position, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this affects borrowing capacity, potential liquidation risks, transaction costs, or what happens on success/failure. For a financial operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured.

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 this is a financial mutation tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what side effects occur, parameter formats, or usage context. For a tool that presumably moves assets in a DeFi system, this leaves too many critical questions unanswered.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter ('asset', 'amount') has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters - no explanation of what 'asset' represents (token address, symbol, etc.), what format 'amount' should be in (wei, decimal string, etc.), or any constraints. 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 'Withdraw supplied collateral' clearly states the verb ('withdraw') and resource ('collateral'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'supplied collateral' means in this context. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'strato.lending.borrow' or 'strato.lending.supply-collateral', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'strato.lending.withdraw-liquidity' or 'strato.lending.withdraw-collateral-max'.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having collateral already supplied), differences from 'strato.lending.withdraw-collateral-max', or when to choose this over other withdrawal tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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