Import Quai Wallet

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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, etc., so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds meaningful details: the private key is used once, never returned, and never logged; disk files use owner-only permissions; the password is not stored; and the address's zone is auto-detected and cannot be changed. It does not describe failure behavior on duplicate names, but the schema already covers the uniqueness constraint.

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 compact: three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded, then security-relevant details, then zone behavior. Every sentence adds distinct information without redundancy or filler.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the invocation-critical aspects: purpose, parameter handling, security, and zone constraints. It does not state what the successful return value is, which would be helpful, but an agent can reasonably infer completion and use related tools like list_wallets to verify. This leaves only a minor completeness 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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already documented (name constraints, password minimum, private key format). The description adds security context, such as 'never returned or logged,' but does not meaningfully expand parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (import), a specific resource (an existing Quai private key), and the storage outcome (encrypted wallet store under a name/password). It also connects the tool to send_transaction, making its purpose concrete. It distinguishes itself from create_wallet by focusing on an existing key, and from import_qi_wallet by explicitly saying 'Quai private key'.

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 gives clear context: use this when you have an existing Quai private key and want to avoid passing it around for future send_transaction calls. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer create_wallet, import_qi_wallet, or another sibling, nor does it state exclusions. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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