import_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('import') which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as security implications, whether this overwrites existing wallets, authentication needs, or error handling. For a sensitive operation like wallet import with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key information ('import an existing wallet') and adds necessary detail ('from private key or mnemonic') without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity of wallet operations (sensitive, cryptographic) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on security implications, what 'import' entails (e.g., storage, overwriting), or expected outcomes. For a tool with 2 required parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('name' and 'privateKey'). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'mnemonic' as an alternative source, but this isn't reflected in the schema parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could clarify the 'privateKey' format or 'mnemonic' usage.

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 ('import') and resource ('existing wallet'), specifying the source ('from private key or mnemonic'). It distinguishes from sibling 'create_wallet' by implying this is for existing wallets, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about differentiation.

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 like 'create_wallet' or other wallet-related tools. It mentions the source (private key or mnemonic) but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for choosing this tool over others.

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