wallet_lock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one meaningful behavior beyond the name — that sensitive data is cleared from memory. It omits other important traits: whether the wallet must be unlocked first, whether active operations are interrupted, and whether the effect is reversible via wallet_unlock.

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 action and its effect are front-loaded in a single efficient sentence. The appended 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is off-topic for this tool and does not earn its place, though it is brief enough not to obscure the main point.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose and the memory-clearing effect. However, it leaves gaps an agent would care about: what state the wallet is left in and what subsequent calls will require unlocking, which is exactly the context missing structured fields.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 ('Lock the agent's wallet') plus an effect ('clearing sensitive data from memory'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling wallet_unlock. It does not explicitly name or contrast with wallet_unlock/wallet_status, so sibling differentiation is implied by the verb rather than spelled out.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it should lock the wallet when finished with sensitive operations, but there is no explicit 'use when' or 'do not use when' guidance. The second sentence about earning_opportunities is promotional and does not help decide when to invoke this tool over wallet_unlock or lightning_lock.

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