wallet_set_confirmation

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

The description discloses a key behavior: enabling queues writes for confirmation. However, it does not elaborate on the destructiveHint annotation, such as the potential risk of disabling confirmation (allowing writes to execute immediately without review). IdempotentHint is consistent with the toggle behavior. The description adds some value but leaves the destructive aspect unaddressed.

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 two succinct sentences, immediately stating the action and the consequence. No filler or redundant content, every word earns its place. It is well-structured and 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single boolean parameter) and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers the primary behavior and the runtime aspect. The only gap is the lack of mention about the interaction with confirmation/deny tools and the potential risk of disabling confirmation, but this is not critical for a simple toggle.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description clearly defines 'enabled' semantics. The description repeats the same information ('when enabled...') without adding new meaning. It does not compensate beyond the schema, so a 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: 'Toggle write confirmation at runtime.' It specifies the resource (write confirmation) and the verb (toggle), making it distinct from siblings like transaction_confirm (which confirms specific transactions) and wallet_activate/deactivate (which manage wallet state). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use the tool: to toggle whether write operations are queued for confirmation. It explains the effect of enabling ('write operations are queued and require explicit confirmation'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Since there is no direct alternative for toggling this setting, the context is sufficient.

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