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

The description directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false by stating 'Remove a wallet's Autopilot policy.' Removing a policy is a destructive action, but the annotation claims it is not destructive. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines trust in the tool's safety profile.

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 a single sentence plus an inline quote, providing essential signing details without unnecessary wording. It is tightly packed and easy to parse.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the signing mechanism and nonce condition, but it omits what happens after deletion (e.g., success/failure responses). Additionally, the contradiction with annotations creates a gap in understanding the tool's actual safety and side effects, making it only partially complete.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema by specifying the exact newline-separated message to sign and the condition that nonce must exceed the current policy nonce. This is critical operational detail not present in the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Remove a wallet's Autopilot policy,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_staking_policy and get_staking_policy by indicating this is the deletion operation.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (to remove a wallet's Autopilot policy) and provides critical signing instructions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would be the only improvement for a perfect score.

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