prepare_lido_unstake

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but description adds that the transaction is unsigned and includes an optional approve step, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not detail the return value or authorization needs.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action without any fluff. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Despite moderate complexity, the description lacks information about the return value (no output schema) and when the approve step is needed. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for using the tool effectively.

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 67%, and the description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. The schema already explains amountStETH and approvalCap well, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool builds an unsigned Lido withdrawal request transaction, specifying the underlying function (requestWithdrawals) and mentioning the approve step. This distinguishes it from other Lido tools like prepare_lido_stake and prepare_lido_unwrap.

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 usage for unstaking Lido stETH but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like prepare_rocketpool_unstake or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for sibling differentiation.

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