Patch Instances Customers Blockchain Wallets By Id

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), yet the description adds the crucial one-shot, null-gated irreversibility semantics that annotations alone would not convey. It does not mention auth requirements or the Idempotency-Key retry behavior, but the core behavioral caveat is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the operative constraint front-loaded. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 mutation tool with a nested request body and no output schema, the description supplies the key semantic constraint and irreversibility. It is close to complete, though it omits any mention of the idempotency header or path-parameter requirements.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate; it does meaningfully explain the payload field is_self_custody (holding private keys, only settable while null). However, it says nothing about the three path parameters (instance_id, customer_id, id) or the optional Idempotency-Key, leaving half the surface to inference.

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?

Names a specific action (declaring private-key custody) on a specific resource (blockchain wallet), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling Get/Delete/Post wallet tools. The verb 'Declares' is slightly non-standard for a PATCH update, but the resource and effect are 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 a clear precondition ('Only works while is_self_custody is null') and a clear exclusion ('once saved it cannot be changed'), which tells the agent exactly when this call is valid. It does not name alternative tools for the already-set case, so it falls short of a 5.

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