delete_manual_crypto

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral detail: the operation is irreversible, and the API rejects the request if balance history exists and keep_history is not explicitly set. This materially changes how the agent should invoke the tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: one identifies the target, one states the critical precondition, and one states irreversibility. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

With complete parameter schemas, a destructiveHint annotation, and the description covering the key behavioral caveat, the agent has everything necessary to call this tool correctly. The absence of an output schema does not create a gap for this straightforward deletion operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the keep_history condition and notes the rejection consequence, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a manually-managed crypto asset.' The qualifier 'manually-managed' distinguishes it from sync-related sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 clearly frames the tool as applying to manually-managed crypto assets, which gives the agent a solid context for selection. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, but the 'manually-managed' qualifier effectively excludes synced crypto operations.

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