wallet_unlock

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 a state change (transactions become possible) and the active-wallet fallback, which is useful. It says nothing about what happens on a wrong password, whether unlock is session-scoped or subject to wallet_set_timeout, whether failed attempts are throttled, or how the agent should treat the sensitive password value beyond the schema's own warning.

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 behavior and the default-wallet rule are front-loaded in two tight sentences. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is promotional cross-sell that does not help an agent decide whether or how to unlock a wallet and dilutes an otherwise lean definition.

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 security-sensitive, two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate on the happy path but omits failure behavior and what the call returns (a session handle versus a plain success acknowledgement). Those omissions are consequential for an agent that must sequence unlock before transfer_stx or call_contract.

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 both password (with a sensitivity warning) and walletId (with its active-wallet fallback). The description restates the walletId default without adding format, constraints, or password-handling guidance, so baseline 3 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 ('Unlock the agent's wallet') plus the effect ('enable transactions'), which cleanly distinguishes it from wallet_lock, wallet_switch, and wallet_create in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation ('to enable transactions') and specifies the default behavior when walletId is omitted ('unlocks the active wallet'), which is a real decision point for the agent. It offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to the inverse (wallet_lock) for the re-lock case.

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