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

The description discloses critical behavior beyond the annotations: the key is dropped from memory, signed jobs remain valid, timeouts still fire, and the environment is test-only. This enriches the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) with actionable operational details.

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 three tight sentences, each earning its place: primary action and effect, consequence for jobs, and critical environment warning. It is front-loaded with the most relevant information and contains no wasted 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what happens, what continues, and the test-only nature. The only notable gap is the lack of parameter provenance or usage detail, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description bears the burden of explaining the parameter. It never mentions 'wallet_handle' by name, its format, or how to obtain it (e.g., from afg_create_wallet). The name and title provide some self-evidence, but the description adds no semantic value for the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Forget'/'Discard'), identifies the resource ('session wallet'), and states the precise effect: the in-memory key is dropped. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like afg_create_wallet and afg_fund.

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 clear behavioral context: after discarding, jobs already signed continue and timeouts still release or refund them. This helps the agent understand consequences, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'use when you no longer need the wallet'), so it stops short of full guidance.

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