import_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation imports into an encrypted store, implying a write operation, but does not detail side effects (e.g., overwriting existing wallet, irreversible changes, or security considerations). More behavioral context is needed.

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, clear sentence of 12 words with no fluff. It is optimally concise and front-loaded with the key action.

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 4 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the return value (e.g., success message, wallet identifier). For a mutation tool, specifying the output would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the schema already provides sufficient parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 (import), the resource (private key or mnemonic), and the target (encrypted local wallet store). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_wallets, which only list wallets, and set_active_wallet, which switches active wallet.

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 for importing credentials into the wallet store but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks prerequisites or conditions (e.g., wallet must not already exist, or recommended secret types).

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