Identity wallet (headless sign-in key)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing filesystem behavior (0600 permissions, never overwritten, no restart required), the exact return value (only the public key), and a side-effect disclaimer ('Moves no funds'). This confirms and enriches the idempotentHint=true annotation rather than merely restating it.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's identity in the first clause, then the reuse logic, then the pipeline. Sentences are dense but every one carries operational information — no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly states what is returned ('only the public key'), and it covers side effects, idempotency, file location, and downstream ordering. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Nothing here is misleading or missing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('The Solana keypair this agent signs in to DFM with (SIWS)') plus the reuse-vs-create branch, and clearly differentiates itself from create_app_wallet which appears later in the stated workflow. An agent can identify this as step 1 of onboarding without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the conditions under which the keypair is REUSED (env vars set or ~/.config/dfm/agent-wallet.json present) versus created, and places the tool in a full ordered pipeline (create_identity_wallet → SIWS login → set_profile → create_app_wallet → app_wallet_fund → create_api_key). No ambiguity about when to call it.

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