wallet_add_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses key behaviors: it creates/imports accounts, stores them securely in the OS keychain, sets spending limits, and returns only address/public key (not private keys). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, potential rate limits, or what happens if the nickname already exists.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, storage mechanism, key features, and return value. Every element earns its place with zero wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering the core purpose, security storage, and return format. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication needs or error conditions, but given the good schema coverage, it's mostly adequate.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions 'nickname and spending limits' which aligns with parameters but doesn't provide additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a new Algorand account'), the storage mechanism ('store it securely in the OS keychain'), key features ('with a nickname and spending limits'), and the return value ('Returns only address and public key'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_account' by specifying the wallet/keychain storage aspect.

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 implies usage for creating/importing Algorand accounts with security features, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_account' (which appears to be a generic account creation tool) or 'wallet_list_accounts'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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