Draft a stake link

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: nothing is signed, sent, built, broadcast, queued, or marked as staked; no default or ranked validator; and notes disclose the free-balance cap and the 100 NIM first-stake minimum. That is exactly the mutation-adjacent behavior an agent would otherwise misjudge from a 'draft' name.

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 key fact (draft only, link is the deliverable) is front-loaded, and the sentences are purposeful. There is mild redundancy between 'never signs anything and never sends anything' and 'nothing is built, broadcast or queued here', but the emphasis is defensible for a tool whose name could mislead.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must state the return value and does: the link, with notes explaining the app's handling of values. All three parameters are covered by the schema, and the critical post-call workflow is described. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: an omitted or invalid amount is left out of the link with a note, the amount is capped to the free balance, and the 100 NIM minimum applies. It adds constraint-level semantics on top of the field docs rather than restating them.

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 opens with a specific verb, resource, and deliverable ('DRAFTS a stake and returns a link only'), which is exactly the distinction an agent needs. It also differentiates itself from the sibling create_payment_request by naming the analogous behavior, and makes clear this is not the staking action itself.

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?

It clearly frames the workflow: the link opens the NimBooks app pre-filled, the user checks amount and validator there and confirms in their own wallet. It states no validator is recommended or defaulted, implying list_validators is the discovery path. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer get_staking or list_validators, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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