identity_unset_wallet

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 discloses the key authorization prerequisite (unlocked wallet) and that this is a removal/mutation operation, but it omits whether removal is reversible, what identity state remains afterward, and how fee/sponsored transaction behavior interacts with the operation.

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 short and front-loads the purpose and prerequisite. The appended tip about earning_opportunities is unrelated to selecting or invoking this tool and does not earn its place, but the core description remains efficient.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters and there is no output schema, so much of the structured context is covered. For a mutation tool with no annotations, however, the description should say more about the effect of removing the wallet association, such as reversibility and resulting identity state.

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 already documents agentId, fee, and sponsored. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 and resource: remove the agent wallet association from an agent identity in the ERC-8004 identity registry. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as identity_set_wallet and identity_transfer.

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?

It gives the prerequisite that an unlocked wallet is required, which is useful. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like identity_set_wallet, nor does it state exclusions or follow-up behavior after removal.

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