Import Qi Wallet

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

The annotations only record that this is not read-only/destructive, leaving behavioral context to the description. The description adds that the mnemonic is encrypted at rest, that the phrase is not emitted in the tool's output, and that the receiving address is deterministically re-derived from the phrase, which materially informs the agent about privacy and determinism. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, all useful, with the core action front-loaded and the encryption/output caveat earning its place. The phrasing around 'only the mnemonic is encrypted... never the phrase itself' is slightly redundant and awkward, keeping it from top marks for polish.

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?

The tool description, schema, and annotations together let an agent select parameters correctly and understand the core operation, including encryption and deterministic derivation. Since there is no output schema, the absence of a precise return-value description or duplicate-import error behavior leaves a small but real gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not repeat parameter details; the baseline is 3. It adds mild semantic color by tying the zone parameter to deterministic address re-derivation, but this largely mirrors the schema's own zone description rather than providing new meaning.

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 opens with a concrete action ('Import an existing Qi-ledger wallet...'), names the source (BIP-39 mnemonic) and destination (server's encrypted store), and goes beyond the title by mentioning deterministic address derivation. It clearly identifies this as an import operation for Qi wallets, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like import_wallet or create_qi_wallet.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative; the agent must infer that an existing Qi wallet with a mnemonic should use this tool rather than create_qi_wallet. The reference to 'Same encryption as create_qi_wallet' provides context but no exclusion or alternative-routing guidance, so usage guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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