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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a non-obvious third-party side effect (other sessions on the same wallet are signed out), instructing the agent to warn the user before calling, and reassuring that no data is deleted despite destructiveHint=true. It also states the prerequisite (recovery code) and a safety constraint about never asking for the code in conversation.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and keeps every sentence purposeful, but the middle sentence is convoluted (nested parenthetical about shared recovery codes) and slightly harder to parse than needed.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: the destructive side effect, the warning obligation, the precondition, and the safety rule about recovery codes. Nothing an agent needs before invoking is absent.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema carries nothing to compensate for; the description still adds relevant operational context about the recovery code needed afterwards. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool, with only minor value-add beyond it.

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 ('disconnects this app from its saved wallet') and immediately scopes it against the destructive sibling by saying 'Nothing is deleted', which separates it from delete_wallet and from import_wallet/export_wallet.

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 trigger ('Use it when the user wants another wallet') and an implicit exclusion by clarifying nothing is deleted, but it never names delete_wallet or import_wallet as the alternatives for those intents.

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