delete_agent_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'owner access required', adding some behavioral context about permissions. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether deletion is irreversible, what happens to associated data (e.g., balance, transactions), error conditions, or rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete an agent wallet') and includes essential details (identification method and access requirement). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive deletion), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses key details like the irreversible nature of deletion, what 'owner access' entails, potential side effects, and response format. For a tool with significant behavioral implications, this leaves gaps in understanding.

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%, with the parameter 'agent' documented as 'Agent wallet name or ID to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it repeats the same information. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('agent wallet'), specifying it can be identified by 'name or ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_agent_wallets' or 'create_agent_wallet' by focusing on deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 description includes 'owner access required', which implies a usage context (i.e., when the user has ownership permissions). It doesn't provide explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use vs. other wallet operations) or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity. This is implied guidance but lacks depth.

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