prepare_native_stake_deactivate

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

Beyond the idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true annotations, the description details that the stake earns no rewards during deactivation, the simulation gate catches revert conditions, and the cooldown duration.

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 detailed yet each sentence adds unique value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundancy.

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?

For a tool with two parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the operation thoroughly: purpose, prerequisites (authority, nonce), post-conditions, error handling, and sibling references.

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 input schema already provides high-quality descriptions for both parameters (wallet and stakeAccount). The description adds minor context like 'the wallet that originally created the stake' and a discovery reference, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the description's incremental value is marginal.

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 it builds an unsigned deactivate transaction, distinguishes from sibling tools like prepare_native_stake_delegate and prepare_native_stake_withdraw, and explains the cooldown effect.

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 specifies that the wallet must be the staker authority and that a durable nonce is required, and recommends following up with prepare_native_stake_withdraw. It does not explicitly state when not to use it but provides enough context.

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