withdraw_cdp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key non-obvious trait: the tool only builds an unsigned CBOR hex transaction for client-side signing, so it does not broadcast or mutate chain state itself. It does not cover constraints such as whether the amount is validated against available collateral or what happens on insufficient collateral.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The action ('Withdraw ADA collateral from a CDP') leads and the em-dash clause earns its place by conveying the unsigned-transaction signing flow.

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 5-required-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation and output format but leaves gaps: the ambiguous asset parameter, withdrawal limits relative to available collateral, and any indication of what the caller must do with the returned CBOR hex beyond 'client-side signing.'

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 80% and the description adds little beyond it: 'ADA collateral' aligns with the Lovelace amount parameter, but the asset enum (iUSD, iBTC, etc.) is left undescribed and its role in an ADA collateral withdrawal is ambiguous. The description does not clarify how cdpTxHash and cdpOutputIndex jointly identify the CDP UTxO.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Withdraw ADA collateral from a CDP') plus a distinguishing clause ('builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing') that identifies it as a transaction builder, not an executor. This cleanly separates it from siblings like deposit_cdp (deposit collateral) and close_cdp.

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?

Usage is implied — withdraw collateral to reduce a CDP's collateral exposure — but no alternative tools or exclusion conditions are named. The description does not explicitly route the agent to deposit_cdp for adding collateral or close_cdp for full closure, nor does it warn against withdrawing so much that the CDP becomes undercollateralized.

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