wallet_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and clearly discloses the most important behavioral trait: deletion is permanent and cannot be undone. It also warns the user to back up the mnemonic, though it does not mention unlock/auth requirements or what happens to assets in the wallet.

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 core warning is front-loaded and concise, but the trailing tip to call `earning_opportunities` is unrelated to wallet deletion and does not help the agent invoke this tool correctly.

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 destructive three-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the critical irreversibility warning but omits relevant context such as wallet lock state, authentication prerequisites, and consequences for assets held in the wallet.

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 walletId, password, and confirm are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the general mnemonic-backup warning, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a wallet.' It clearly distinguishes this destructive wallet operation from sibling wallet tools such as wallet_export, wallet_list, and wallet_create.

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 implies usage through the irreversible-delete framing and gives the prerequisite to back up the mnemonic. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like wallet_export, wallet_lock, or wallet_switch.

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