wallet_activate

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

The annotation marks destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it explains backend selection (encrypted OWS vault vs. legacy storage), the emission of wallet-changed, and the secret gating via WEB3AGENT_ALLOW_AGENT_VISIBLE_SECRETS. These are behavioral traits not present in the annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and backend selection, followed by the event emission, security gating, and CLI preference. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 optional params, no output schema, only destructiveHint annotation), the description covers the key contextual aspects: backend selection, side-effect event, secret gating, and a local CLI alternative. It doesn't explicitly state success return values, but the wallet-changed event signals outcome, so this is reasonably 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions (mnemonic, privateKey, accountIndex, addressIndex). The description reinforces that a private key or mnemonic is used but doesn't add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action: 'Activate a wallet from a private key or mnemonic using the selected backend.' It specifies the resource (wallet), inputs (private key or mnemonic), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wallet_deactivate and wallet_delete by focusing on activation.

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 explicit context on when to use the tool and when to avoid it: 'Prefer local CLI: npx web3agent wallet activate' clearly points to an alternative. It also notes the environment variable requirement when secrets are provided, which helps the agent decide whether to invoke this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'do not use this tool in X scenario' beyond the CLI preference.

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