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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and non-readonly, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the downstream consequence ('KYA checks deny it immediately') and the auth requirement (organization API key).

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: action first, consequence second, prerequisite last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive, credential-gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the enforcement effect, and the auth requirement. It is largely complete, though a note on whether the wallet can be re-bound or what happens to existing KYA records would close the remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single address parameter, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no format or constraint detail about the address beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Remove a wallet from your Passport') and is the clear inverse of the sibling kya_bind_wallet, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a schema.

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 names the triggering scenario ('rotated or compromised key') and the prerequisite ('Requires the organization API key'), giving clear context for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, so it does not reach a 5.

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