prepare_rocketpool_unstake

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

The description discloses preflight behavior (rETH balance and collateral check), conditional failure with alternative hint, and mentions building an unsigned transaction. This adds context beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, and each sentence provides essential information (operation, no approval, preflight, alternative). No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently covers input parameters, behavior, and failure conditions. It integrates an alternative tool, making it self-contained for agent decision-making.

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 covers one parameter (amountReth) with detailed description and example; the tool description reinforces it. The wallet parameter lacks schema description but is a standard address field, and the description doesn't add further. Coverage is 50%, so description partially compensates.

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 explicitly states the tool builds an unsigned Rocket Pool unstake transaction via rETH.burn, redeeming rETH for ETH from on-protocol collateral. It distinguishes from siblings like prepare_uniswap_swap by specifying no approval needed and preflight conditions.

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 explicit guidance: preflights balance and collateral, refuses if collateral insufficient, and directs to use prepare_uniswap_swap as an alternative. It also notes no approval is needed, clarifying when to use this tool.

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