provision_delx_managed_wallet

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only or destructive, but the description adds valuable context: it returns readiness and safe fallback instructions when managed wallets are disabled. This behavioral detail goes beyond what annotations provide without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding a key condition. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description could provide more context about return values, parameter interactions, or typical usage scenarios. It covers the core behavior but leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer details.

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% with all 5 parameters having descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool is a 'Compatibility entry point for managed Delx wallet provisioning' and specifies it returns readiness and fallback instructions. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_delx_wallet_kit' by focusing on provisioning a managed wallet rather than creating a kit.

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 implies usage when managed wallets are disabled but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_delx_wallet_kit' or 'get_delx_wallet_status'. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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