Delete Customer Custodial Wallet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the concrete success signal ('Returns 204 No Content'), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to residual balance, or required permissions.

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 purpose statement and return value are front-loaded and the whole text is very short. The Arg list is redundant with the schema, but it costs little and does not bury the key information.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the happy-path return code but omits failure modes (wallet not found, wallet with balance, authorization errors) and the consequences of deletion. Adequate to call it, but thin given the risk profile; the destructive annotation carries much of the burden.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The Args block merely restates customer_id and wallet_id verbatim, adding no format, ownership, or validation semantics (e.g., whether the customer id must match the wallet's owner). Baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('Remove') and a precise resource ('customer's custodial wallet'), which separates it from the sibling ashar_delete_customer_wallet and ashar_delete_bank_account. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the entity naming is distinctive enough that an agent can route on it.

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 never states when to use this tool versus ashar_delete_customer_wallet or the other delete siblings, nor any preconditions (e.g., wallet must be empty, funds must be swept) or exclusions. The only implied usage is from the name itself.

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