wallet_import

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose meaningful behavior: the wallet is 'encrypted locally and stored in ~/.aibtc/'. However, it omits important traits for a sensitive write operation, such as whether an existing wallet is overwritten, whether the wallet is unlocked/active after import, and what happens on invalid mnemonic.

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 is two tight, front-loaded sentences. The trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is promotional and does not help an agent decide whether or how to call wallet_import, so it dilutes rather than 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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description carries the disclosure burden, and it covers purpose, encryption, and storage location. It falls short on post-import state and overwrite/error behavior for a mnemonic-handling operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (name, network, mnemonic, password) are documented in-schema, and the description adds nothing beyond restating BIP39. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Import an existing wallet') plus the mechanism (BIP39 mnemonic phrase), which distinguishes it from wallet_create among the many wallet_* siblings. It doesn't explicitly name wallet_create as the alternative, but 'existing' carries the distinction.

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 phrase 'import an existing wallet' implies when to use it versus creating a new one, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative. The appended tip about earning_opportunities is a next-step suggestion, not selection guidance for this tool.

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