remove_wallets_from_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states the action is 'Remove' (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether removal is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, input expectation, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the return statement could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, earning its place efficiently.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return type but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'group name and a list of wallet names', which hints at parameters but doesn't fully explain the single input schema property 'remove_wallets_from_group_requests' or its structure. The description adds minimal value 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 ('Remove wallets') and target ('from a specified group'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unarchive_wallet_group' or 'rename_wallets' that might also affect wallet-group relationships, missing full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., wallets must exist in the group), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'add_wallets_to_group' or 'archive_wallet_group', leaving usage context unclear.

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