prepare_rocketpool_unstake

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool performs preflight checks on wallet balance and contract collateral, and refuses with an alternative hint if collateral is insufficient. This adds context beyond annotations, though it does not detail the return format of the built transaction.

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 concise with three sentences that front-load the main action, followed by key details and failure handling. Every sentence adds value without superfluous text.

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 adequately covers purpose, usage, param semantics (especially amountReth), and failure behavior. It references a sibling tool. However, it lacks an explicit description of what the tool returns (e.g., an unsigned transaction object), which would improve completeness.

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 50% (only amountReth has a description). The description compensates well for amountReth by specifying human-readable format, giving an example, and clarifying that it is not raw wei. For wallet, the description implies it is the caller's address via 'operates on caller's balance' and 'preflights wallet rETH balance', but explicit clarification would be beneficial.

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 it builds an unsigned Rocket Pool unstake transaction, mentions the specific method (rETH.burn) and source (on-protocol collateral). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'prepare_rocketpool_stake' and even suggests an alternative ('prepare_uniswap_swap') when collateral is insufficient.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'No approval needed — burn operates on caller's balance.' It also includes a preflight check and a conditional hint to use 'prepare_uniswap_swap' if collateral is insufficient, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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