wallet_rotate_password

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses atomic backup, re-encryption, verification, cleanup, and rollback behavior on failure. It also discloses the side effect of locking an unlocked 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 description is front-loaded with the core operation and the critical atomic/rollback behavior. The final tip about earning_opportunities is unrelated to this tool and does not earn 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 sensitive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral facts an agent needs: atomicity, rollback on failure, required old/new passwords, and the post-rotation locked state. It is complete enough to call safely.

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 the schema already documents walletId, oldPassword, and newPassword requirements. The description adds useful context about re-encryption and locking but does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides.

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: changing a wallet's encrypted-keystore password. It is clearly distinct from sibling wallet operations like wallet_create, wallet_import, wallet_unlock, and wallet_export.

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 clear operational context, including the important consequence that an unlocked wallet will be locked after rotation and must be re-unlocked with the new password. It does not explicitly route agents between alternatives such as wallet_create, wallet_import, or wallet_unlock for other wallet lifecycle needs.

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