prepare_kamino_withdraw

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds specifics: the error when no deposit exists, health-factor gating on-chain, requirement of a durable nonce, and same blind-sign treatment as prepare_kamino_supply. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value (purpose, error condition, health gate and nonce requirement). No superfluous information.

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 tool's nature (building a transaction with 3 required params), the description covers purpose, error handling, health-factor constraint, nonce requirement, and signing treatment. It references the sibling for consistency. No output schema, but the description adequately sets expectations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the durable nonce requirement, which is not in the schema. While the schema already describes each parameter, the description provides additional behavioral context beyond parameter-specific details.

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 verb 'build a Kamino withdraw tx' and the resource 'Kamino withdraw', explaining it pulls liquidity from a previously-supplied reserve. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing prepare_kamino_supply and noting the error condition if no deposit exists.

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 implies when to use (to withdraw liquidity) and provides context about error conditions and health-factor gating. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like borrowing or repaying, though the tool name and sibling set make this clear.

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