wallet_remove_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a removal operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether removal is permanent, if it requires confirmation, what happens to associated assets/transactions, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly states what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating identification methods or adding a brief note about consequences.

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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error details), side effects, or safety considerations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description should provide more context about behavior and outcomes.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'nickname or index' as identification methods, but doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., that 'nickname' and 'index' are alternatives, or that 'network' and 'itemsPerPage' might be irrelevant for this operation). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 ('Remove') and target ('an Algorand account from the wallet'), with specific identification methods ('by nickname or index'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'wallet_add_account' and 'wallet_list_accounts' by focusing on removal. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive operations like 'make_asset_destroy_txn' or 'rekey_account'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the account must exist or be empty), nor does it specify when not to use it (e.g., if the account holds assets). The description lacks context about alternatives like 'wallet_switch_account' for deactivation without removal.

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