create_vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Create a new vault' says nothing about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens upon success. It only states the action itself, leaving the agent with no understanding of the tool's impact or requirements.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no filler—but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. It is not overly wordy, but it is not appropriately sized because it lacks necessary context to guide the agent.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. The agent has no information about return values, side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate even for a simple creation tool.

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 input schema describes all three parameters with 100% coverage: name, description, and blockchainIds. The description adds no additional information about parameters, so it goes no further than the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Create a new vault' uses a specific verb+resource pair, clearly stating the tool's action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vaults and get_vault through the 'create' verb, though it lacks scope details such as what a vault consists of. This is slightly above the minimum viable but not as rich as examples that include specific constraints.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where other tools like create_wallet or deploy_contract might be more appropriate. The context is implied solely by the tool name, which is insufficient.

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