Disconnect the wallet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by confirming it writes to a remote service and by promising the call is safe when no session exists, which is genuine idempotency information an agent would otherwise have to guess. It stops short of describing what a successful teardown returns or whether local credentials/state are cleared.

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 short sentences, front-loaded and waste-free. The opening 'Writes to a remote service' is somewhat generic boilerplate, but it sets the mutation context before the specific 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?

For a no-argument session-teardown tool with no output schema, purpose, mutation nature, and not-connected safety are all covered. Only the post-call state (what the agent should expect to observe afterward) is left implicit.

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 tool takes no meaningful input and the single placeholder parameter is fully documented in the schema as unused, so the description has nothing extra to document. It correctly implies a zero-argument call by not referencing any inputs.

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: 'Tears down the active WalletConnect session.' Combined with the name, an agent can immediately distinguish this from dexe_wc_connect (which establishes a session) and dexe_wc_status (which reads it).

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?

'safe when not connected' tells the agent it need not gate the call behind a status check, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over checking dexe_wc_status first, and no prerequisites for calling it while a session is live.

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