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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: the deletion is permanent, it signs out every app using the wallet, and user confirmation is required beforehand. Those side effects are not derivable from the annotations and materially change how an agent should invoke it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what happens, followed by the gating condition and fallback. No sentence is filler and the destructive consequence is stated before the procedural rules.

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 zero-param, irreversible tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining needed context: irreversibility, cross-app sign-out, confirmation, and the export alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with a whole-wallet deletion that targets the saved wallet implicitly.

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 (deletes the saved wallet) plus its two consequences: permanence and signing out every app using it. That scope wording implicitly separates it from remove_card (single card) and export_wallet, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only when the user asks to delete it'), a procedural requirement ('confirm first'), and a named alternative ('offer export_wallet to keep a copy'). An agent knows exactly when to call it and what to do instead.

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