Encrypt Wallet

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

The description's return fields (iv, salt) imply randomness, contradicting the annotation idempotentHint=true. Since AES-GCM typically requires unique IVs and salts, this is a significant behavioral inconsistency. Annotation Contradiction flagged.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, then args and return format in a clean list. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description explains the return format. It also covers companion decryption tool and password strength. Missing error cases/security caveats, but adequate for a simple encryption utility.

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% (wif and password already explained). The description repeats the same info and adds no deeper meaning beyond specifying min 12 chars, which matches minLength. 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 'Encrypt a WIF private key with AES-256-GCM' – a specific verb, resource, and algorithm. It clearly distinguishes the tool from wallet management and inscribing siblings.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Use this to create an encrypted wallet that can be stored safely' and names the companion decryption tool 'ordnet_wallet_init'. Does not list exclusions but sufficiently conveys when to use.

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