delete_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a soft-delete (not permanent), specifies effects on listings and transactions, and implies it's a mutation operation. However, it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or error conditions.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and immediately explain the consequences. Every word adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about the soft-delete behavior and effects. However, it doesn't cover response format, error cases, or confirmation of deletion, leaving some gaps in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, this is acceptable. Baseline would be 3, but the simplicity of a single parameter warrants a 4.

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 ('Delete (soft-delete)') and the resource ('a wallet'), with specific details about the effect ('no longer appear in listings and cannot be used for transactions'). It distinguishes from potential hard-delete operations by specifying 'soft-delete'.

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 a wallet needs to be removed from listings and transaction use, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'pause_wallet' or 'delete_paywall'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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