wallet_delete

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: 'Permanently delete' specifies irreversibility, 'requires explicit confirmation' warns about the confirmation requirement, and 'revert to read-only ephemeral mode' discloses the post-condition. It does not contradict annotations.

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 exceptionally concise, using two sentences to convey the action, scope, destructive consequence, and confirmation requirement. Every word adds value, and the warning is front-loaded.

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, destructive tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, consequences, and prerequisites. It also distinguishes itself from the many sibling wallet tools.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the description has no parameter details to add. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('persisted wallet material'), and distinguishes it from siblings like wallet_activate and wallet_deactivate by noting the permanent, destructive nature and the resulting revert to ephemeral mode.

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 implicitly defines when to use this tool (when permanent deletion is required) and indicates the consequence (revert to read-only ephemeral mode). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from temporary deactivation tools.

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