wallet_deactivate

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

Annotations only include idempotentHint=true, which is sparse. The description adds valuable behavioral context: reverting to read-only ephemeral mode and explicitly preserving persisted wallet material. This clarifies the non-destructive nature and aligns with idempotency without 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part adds value: action, target, mode change, and preservation of persisted material.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core action and the critical non-destructive behavior. It could briefly clarify the implications of 'read-only ephemeral mode', but the current level is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds meaningful context by specifying 'current runtime/session wallet', which clarifies what the tool operates on, compensating for absence of schema guidance.

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 uses a specific verb 'Deactivate' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current runtime/session wallet'. It also states the outcome ('revert to read-only ephemeral mode') and explicitly what it does NOT do ('without deleting persisted wallet material'), which distinguishes it from wallet_delete and complements wallet_activate.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to deactivate the active runtime/session wallet. It indirectly contrasts with deletion, but does not explicitly name alternatives like wallet_delete or wallet_activate, nor does it provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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