radiant_create_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add meaningful behavior: the output involves a WIF or mnemonic, mnemonic mode is recoverable, and random mode has no mnemonic. The 'WARNING: Store the WIF/mnemonic securely' line flags sensitive credential handling. It does not explicitly state persistence or side effects, which prevents a 5.

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 short sentences front-load the core action, then pack mode trade-offs and a security warning. There is no filler and no repetition of schema details; every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains enough to invoke correctly: mode selection, recoverability, and secret handling. An explicit statement of the return shape or whether the wallet is persisted would fully close the 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds mode-level meaning beyond the schema: random key is fast/no-mnemonic, mnemonic mode is recoverable with 12-24 words, and WIF/mnemonic need secure storage. This helps the agent understand the trade-offs behind path, passphrase, and word_count.

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?

Opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Generate a new Radiant wallet.' The two modes are explicitly described, and the word 'new' distinguishes this from restore/register siblings. It adds real semantic content beyond the tool name.

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?

Clearly establishes the use case: new wallet creation rather than recovery or key registration. It also gives mode-selection guidance by contrasting random key as fast/no-mnemonic with mnemonic mode as recoverable. It does not explicitly name alternatives like radiant_restore_wallet, so it stops short of a 5.

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